United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER SETTING REVOCATION HEARING
Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on the Government's Motion
for Arrest Warrant and Revocation of Defendant's Order of
Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (the
“Motion”) [#333, filed March 5, 2018], which was
referred to this court pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 57.1 and the
memorandum dated March 5, 2018 [#334]. On April 4, 2018, the
United States Marshal Service arrested Defendant Trammel
Thomas (“Defendant” or “Mr. Thomas”)
in the District of Arizona, see [#369], and the
Honorable Eileen S. Willett entered an Order of Detention
following a detention hearing before the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona. See
[#405-1]. Upon Defendant's return to this District, an
issue arose as to whether he was entitled to a Revocation
Hearing in this court, or whether the Order of Detention
entered by Magistrate Judge Willett constituted an order to
revoke bond pending Defendant's sentencing. For the
reasons set forth below, this court concludes that Defendant
is entitled to a Revocation Hearing.
February 8, 2016, a grand jury for the District of Colorado
returned an indictment against Mr. Thomas on one count of
Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, twelve counts of Wire
Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, thirteen counts
of Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a
forfeiture allegation. [#1]. He was arrested in the District
of Arizona, and on March 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Willett
ordered him released and set Conditions of Release. [#11 at
6-7]. The grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment
against Mr. Thomas on April 11, 2017, charging him with one
count of Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to
Claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286 and seven counts
of Aiding and Abetting Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1341 and 2. [#131]. There additionally remained
an allegation of forfeiture. [Id.]. Ultimately,
Defendant went to trial on counts 1, 2-7 of the Superseding
Indictment, and on November 30, 2017, a jury in this District
convicted Mr. Thomas of all counts. [#233].
presiding judge, the Honorable William J. Martinez, then
addressed the application of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(a)(1), with regard to immediate remand. Judge
Martinez found clear and convincing evidence that
Defendant's Conditions of Release reasonably assured that
he would not flee or pose a danger to the safety of the
community and that the conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(a)(1) were met, and thus released Defendant
subject to the Conditions of Release as set forth in
Magistrate Judge Willett's Order Setting Conditions of
Release. See [#223; #11 at 6-7]. The court set Mr.
Thomas's Sentencing Hearing for April 12, 2018 at 9:30
March 5, 2018, the Government filed the pending Motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148. [#333]. The Government
asserts that Defendant violated the Conditions of Release by
misrepresenting his employment and his residence, and by
testing positive for an opiate. [Id.]. Judge
Martinez referred the Motion to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge, see [#334], who issued the arrest warrant and
reserved the issue of whether Defendant's bond would be
revoked. See [#339]. Subsequently, for reasons
unrelated to the Motion, Judge Martinez sua sponte
reset Defendant's Sentencing Hearing to August 9, 2018.
United States Marshals arrested Mr. Thomas on April 4, 2018
in the District of Arizona. [#4]. Mr. Thomas waived his
identity hearing and production of the warrant, [#370-1], but
proceeded to a detention hearing, [#370-6 at 2], and was
committed to this District for further proceedings. [#370].
This court held Defendant's initial appearance on April
30, 2018, and addressed at that time whether Mr. Thomas was
entitled to another detention hearing or a formal revocation
hearing in this District, given Magistrate Judge
Willett's Order of Detention. See [#399]. The
court requested briefing on the issue from both the
Government and Defendant, who each filed briefs on May 3,
2018. [#402; #403]. During a Status Conference held May 9,
2018, the undersigned advised the Parties of her conclusion
that a Revocation Hearing is necessary and set a Revocation
Hearing for May 30, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. [#406].
discussed above, the Government filed the instant Motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148. [#333]. That section,
entitled “Sanctions for violation of a release
condition, ” provides in pertinent part:
(a) Available Sanctions.
A person who has been released under section 3142 of this
title, and who has violated a condition of his release, is
subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention,
and a prosecution for contempt of court.
(b) Revocation of Release.
The attorney for the Government may initiate a proceeding for
revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the
district court. A judicial officer may issue a warrant for
the arrest of a person charged with violating a condition of
release, and the person shall be brought before a judicial
officer in the district in which such person's arrest was
ordered for a proceeding in accordance with this section. To
the extent practicable, a person charged with violating the
condition of release that such person not commit a Federal,
State, or local crime during the period of release, shall be
brought before the judicial officer who ordered the release
and whose order is alleged to have been violated.
18 U.S.C. § 3148(a)-(b). In briefing the issue, the
Government relies on United States v. Cisneros, 328
F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003), to argue that, given Magistrate
Judge Willett's Order of Detention, any further
proceedings regarding Mr. Thomas's detention pending
sentencing are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145, which
“requires that Thomas file a motion seeking revocation
or amendment [of Magistrate Judge Willett's Order of
Detention] and it requires that the motion be ruled upon by
the district judge having original jurisdiction over the
matter.” [#403 at 2]. The Government further contends
that the court is not required to give Defendant another
hearing, and that Judge ...