United States v. Sutton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal Action No. 19-292 (JDB)
STEPHON JAMAL DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court pretrial
detention determinations in this multidefendant drug conspiracy case. The Court considers each
s, the Court presents its findings
of fact and statement of reasons with respect to each defendant in a single memorandum opinion.
For the reasons below, the Court finds that, based on the facts presented to the Court at this time,
each of the five defendants Stephon Jamal Davis, Larry Key, Ronald Mathews, Darren Piles, and
Reginald Maurice Sutton shall be detained without bail pending trial, affirming Magistrate Judge
BACKGROUND & FINDINGS
On September 4, 2019, the government charged eight defendants with conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, or crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Indictment [ECF No. 1] at 1. The indictment also
charges Davis and Key with offense conduct involving 280 grams or more of cocaine base in
violation of § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); Mathews and Piles with offense conduct involving 28 grams or
more of cocaine base in violation of § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); and Sutton with offense conduct involving
a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of § 841(b)(1)(C). Indictment at 2.
At the hearing and in the briefs before this Court, the government proceeded by way of
proffer. Based on that proffer, the Court finds that in July 2018, law enforcement began
investigating Larry Key and Stephon Davis for drug trafficking.
Detention Re Davis [ECF No. 12] at 3. 1 The investigation included the authorized interception of
Id. at 4. During
the interceptions, there were 94 pertinent calls between Key and Davis, and Key met with Davis
to obtain narcotics from him on approximately 35 occasions, obtaining up to an ounce of crack
cocaine at a time. Id. at 15. In the recorded communications, Key and Davis use coded language
to make the drug transactions. Id. at 15 17.
The FBI also made eight controlled purchases of narcotics in its investigation, two of which
involved Davis. Id. at 4. The telephone conversations setting up the narcotics transactions were
recorded, the cooperating witness was equipped with audio recording equipment, and law
enforcement agents observed the cooperating witness conduct the drug transactions. Id. In two of
the controlled purchases, Davis sold narcotics to the cooperating witness through Key, id. at 5 8,
and on multiple occasions, Key directly sold narcotics to the cooperating witness,
for Pretrial Detention Re Key [ECF No. 33] at 11.
The government further proffers that Mathews operated a stash house s direction.
42 pertinent communications
between Davis and Mathews during the wiretap. Id. In these communications, Davis frequently
called Mathews to tell him to fill various drug orders. Id. at 10 15. For example, in an intercept
on May 21, 2019, Davis received a call from a James Hamlin
1
The Court primarily cites of Davis because it
describes communications between Davis and each of the other defendants. The memoranda on the other defendants
includes the same descriptions verbatim, but only includes the descriptions relevant to the defendant at issue. In other
words, most inclusive statement of the facts.
2
Id. at 10 11. Davis directs Hamlin [g] him
Id. at 11. Hamlin Id.
-8
Id. Mathews Id. Davis later clarifies -
l Id. The government explains that because Hamlin only had $140, Davis directed
Mathews to give Hamlin only 1.8 grams of cocaine base.
The intercepts also include many conversations between Davis and Piles, in which the
defendants use coded language to conduct drug transactions. The government proffers that Davis
supplied Piles with 3.5 grams of cocaine base every few days. Id. at 9. For example, in an intercept
Id.
Id. at 9 10. Piles replies -5, which, according to the
government, means that Piles is trying to purchase $150 worth of crack cocaine. Id. Davis says
Id. The very next day, Piles calls Davis. Id. Davis
which the government interprets as Piles trying to obtain $200
worth of crack cocaine. Id. At the hearing held on September 19, 2019, the government further
proffered that such a pattern of purchases is consistent with purchasing drugs for distribution not
personal use. Some of the transactions between Davis and Piles are also corroborated by
surveillance. See id. at 9.
Finally, the intercepts captured at least two instances where Sutton purchased
approximately half an ounce of cocaine base from Davis. Id. at 18 19. For example, on August
Id.
Id. Later that day,
3
Sutton called Davis telling him he was outside, Id. The government
proffers that the quantities purchased by Sutton are consistent only with mid-level narcotics
n Re Sutton at 3 [ECF No. 13] at 10.2
LEGAL STANDARD
A magistrate detention order is subject to de novo review by the district court. See
United States v. Taylor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 55, 63 (D.D.C. 2018); United States v. Hunt, 240 F. Supp.
3d 128, 132 33 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing cases). The court shall order that a defendant be detained
prior to trial if the court finds,
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any
other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The government bears the burden of
safety of the com United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987).
if the justification for
pretrial detention is the risk of flight. United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
If the court finds there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a drug
offense in violation of the Controlled Substances Act for which a maximum penalty of ten years
imprisonment or more is prescribed, the court must presume, subject to rebuttal by the defendant,
that no combination of conditions upon the defendant s release would reasonably assure the safety
of the community and the appearance of the defendant as required. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A).
United
2
The Court does not recount the proffered facts regarding the three other defendants in this case, including
Lemar Dielo Kinnard and Warren Boyd, who have not appealed their pretrial detention determinations, and Elgin
Thomas Hoggard, who Magistrate Judge Meriweather released pending trial.
4
States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208,
1210 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ( [T]he indictment alone would have been enough to raise the rebuttable
presumption that no condition would reasonably assure the safety of the Once
at a minimum to impose a burden of production on the
United States
v. Alatishe, 768 F.2d 364, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
In determining whether any release conditions can reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant as required and the safety of the community, the court considers:
circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence . . . or
involves . . . a controlled substance
various personal information including character, employment, and criminal history
nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the
person 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
ANALYSIS
All five defendants are subject to the rebuttable presumption of detention because all crack
cocaine distribution offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) no matter the amount of
cocaine base involved See
id. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), 841(b)(1)(C). With respect to each defendant, the Court
has considered the relevant law, the facts presented in the indictment, Magistrate Judge
memoranda submitted by the government and defendants,
evidence presented at hearings and provided as exhibits, the information provided by the Pretrial
Services Agency, and the statements and arguments orally made by counsel. After consideration
5
of all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), with respect to each defendant individually, the
Court orders that Davis, Key, Mathews, Piles, and Sutton remain detained prior to the trial.
1. Stephon Jamal Davis
As to Davis, the first factor, the nature and circumstances of the charged offense, strongly
favors detention. Davis is the lead defendant of the eight-person conspiracy. He is charged with
trafficking narcotics on a daily basis, ordering others to traffic narcotics on his behalf, and
operating multiple stash houses where he manufactured, stored, and sold cocaine base. Davis is
charged with offense conduct involving 280 or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), which provides a mandatory minimum sentence of ten
It is a serious offense that favors pretrial detention.
The weight of the evidence against Davis is strong and favors detention. The government
intercepted coded s phone that the government
claims The government also conducted two
controlled narcotics purchases with Davis using a cooperating witness, though Davis never made
a direct hand-to-hand sale of narcotics with the cooperating witness. Finally, Davis was frequently
observed by law enforcement at one of the stash houses.
s history and personal characteristics favors neither
detention nor release. Davis is a 28-year-old life-long D.C. resident with significant family ties to
s Mot. for Reconsideration [ECF No. 52] at 3. He has only one prior conviction
from 2016, which is not a narcotics offense, and he has no history of violating conditions of
supervised release. See Davis Pretrial Services Report [ECF No. 2] at 1 3.
The fourth factor whether release of Davis poses a danger to the community favors
detention. Davis is accused of being responsible for the widespread distribution of a significant
6
amount of cocaine base throughout the Metropolitan area, which presents a danger to the
community. He is also the ringleader of the alleged drug
trafficking conspiracy. The Court therefore finds that no condition of release, including home
detention through the High Intensity Supervision Program, could sufficiently assure the safety of
the community.
2. Larry Key
strongly favor detention. Like Davis, Key
is charged with distributing or possessing with intent to distribute 280 or more grams of cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), an offense that carries a
mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. This suggests that Key if convicted
would face a lengthy sentence. Key started obtaining narcotics from Davis in November 2018 and
met with him almost daily over the course of four months, obtaining up to an ounce (28 grams) of
cocaine at a time. Additionally, in a separate case, Key is charged with two counts of unlawful
distribution of heroin and two counts of unlawful distribution of fentanyl. See United States v.
Key, No. 19-291 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019). These are serious offenses that weigh in favor of
detention.
The weight of the evidence against Key is very strong. The FBI, using a cooperating
witness, made multiple controlled purchases of narcotics directly with Key. According to the
government, Key is heard using coded language to make drug transactions on numerous
intercepts s residence was
searched, the police found drug paraphernalia, including a digital scale and a plastic bag with small
zip bags inside. Thus, the weight of the evidence favors detention.
7
The third factor, assessing , slightly favors
release. Key has close family ties to the D.C. area and could reside with his sister if released
pretrial. He is 57 years old, and while he does have a serious criminal record, that record is nearly
30 years old. See Key Pretrial Services Report [ECF No. 3] at 1 5. In the last 28 years, Key has
not been charged or convicted of any criminal activity. Id. However, the government alleged at
the hearing
of heroin and fentanyl ran out, Key switched to trafficking crack cocaine.
Finally, the Court finds that, if released, Key would pose a danger to the community given
the charges of widespread distribution of cocaine base and the trafficking of different types of
narcotics over the course of the past year. Given the seriousness of the offenses, the weight of the
evidence against Key, and the danger posed to the community by the widespread distribution of
crack cocaine as well as the distribution of heroin and fentanyl, the Court finds that no release
conditions can reasonably assure the safety of the community.
3. Ronald Mathews
With respect to Mathews, the Court finds that the four factors, based on the record at this
time, narrowly favor detention. First, the nature of Mathews s offense is serious. According to
brief, Mathews helped operate one of the stash houses and frequently trafficked
s direction. Mathews is charged with distributing more than 28 grams of
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), which means that he
could be subjected to a five-year mandatory minimum. This factor favors detention.
The weight of the evidence against Mathews is also somewhat strong. There are numerous
intercepts corroborated by surveillance indicating that Mathews was aiding Davis in narcotics
8
transactions. There are, however, no narcotics transactions between Mathews and the cooperating
witness. This factor favors detention.
The third factor favors release. Mathews is a 57 year-old life-long resident of the
Washington, D.C. area. He suffers from a serious health condition and is a patient in an important
health study being conducted by the National Institutes of Health. Mathews s Mot. for
Reconsideration of Conditions of Release [ECF No. 56] at 4. He also receives a housing voucher
under a special program, and he risks losing or may have already lost his home for failure to
renew that voucher. Id. Mathews does have a criminal history of narcotics offenses and violating
conditions of release, but those offenses occurred over sixteen years ago. See Mathews Pretrial
Services Report [ECF No. 4] at 2 5. In the last sixteen years, Mathews has only been charged
with driving with a suspended or revoked license in 2008 and driving under the influence in 2003.
Id. s health conditions and relatively old criminal history, this factor favors
release.
Finally, the fourth factor, regarding the danger that release poses to the community, favors
detention. s direction, Mathews struggles with
addiction and may find another source of crack cocaine to traffic if released before the trial. The
apartment, which was allegedly one of the stash houses in the drug conspiracy. Because there is a
real risk that Mathews would continue to traffic narcotics from his apartment, the Court finds that
there are no release conditions available at this time that can assure the safety of the community.
4. Darren Piles
The nature of Piles offense is serious and favors detention. Piles is charged with
distributing 28 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
9
841(b)(1)(B)(iii). According to the government, Piles obtained approximately 3.5 grams of
cocaine base from Davis every few days and that amount and pattern of purchases is consistent
as well as the existence of the indictment, that there is probable cause that Piles distributed or
possessed with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base.
The evidence against Piles is not particularly strong, but there are many intercepts that
3.5 grams of cocaine base from Davis on
many occasions. The additional evidence, including the fact that the police found a small bag of
crack cocaine in his home and that there was a K9 alert to the presence of narcotics in a car used
by Piles but not yet searched, does not strongly indicate that Piles was distributing as opposed to
merely using crack cocaine. Ultimately, this factor only slightly favors detention.
Next, the Court considers the personal characteristics of Piles, including his criminal
history. Piles has lived in the D.C. metropolitan area his entire life and has close family ties to the
area, including a six-month-old child who s Appeal of
Magistrate Judge s Order of Detention [ECF No. 55] ¶ 18. However, Piles at just 28 years old
has a significant criminal history, which includes narcotics offenses. See Piles Pretrial Services
Report [ECF No. 5] at 1 4. Piles has three prior convictions, including for possession of stolen
property, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and second-degree assault. Id. He also
has a charge for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (not marijuana) from December
s completion of a drug treatment program. Thus,
this factor modestly favors detention.
Finally, the Court finds that release of Piles poses a danger to the community because the
alleged offense involves the distribution of a highly dangerous narcotic throughout the community.
10
Considering all the factors, particul s criminal history and the presumption of
s offense, the Court finds that no release conditions could
reasonably assure the safety of the community and that the pretrial detention of Piles is appropriate.
5. Reginald Maurice Sutton
Sutton is the only defendant detained pretrial who is charged only with distributing a
detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Still,
that offense carries a statutory maximum of 20 years and thus triggers the rebuttable presumption
of pretrial detention.
involved approximately 12 grams of cocaine base on one occasion and 14 grams on another
occasion. The nature of the offense favors detention.
The weight of the evidence against Sutton is not particularly strong, though it is also not
particularly weak. There are intercepted wire communications that according to the
government reflect Sutton purchasing 12 14 grams of cocaine base from Davis on two separate
occasions, and the government proffers that this amount is indicative of mid-level narcotics
distribution. These intercepts are not, however, corroborated by surveillance,
home was searched, law enforcement recovered a dropper of suspected PCP and a digital scale,
but no crack cocaine. See Sutton [ECF No. 13] at 10;
;
Detention Re Davis at 3. This factor is, therefore, neutral.
47 year-old lifelong resident of
Washington, D.C. and suffers from very poor health. Id. at 4. His condition requires that he
receive daily injections of insulin. Id.
11
risk of amputation of the limb. Id. On these facts alone, the Court would lean towards ordering
that Sutton be released.
and particularly his demonstrated failure to comply
with supervised release conditions ultimately tips the scales in favor of detention. Sutton was
on probation for a possession of controlled substances (not marijuana) offense at the time he was
arrested for the instant offense, and he has four prior convictions related to controlled substances
since 2003. See Sutton Pretrial Services Report [ECF No. 7] at 2 5. Further, Sutton has a history
of violating the terms of his supervised release and having his supervised release revoked. See id.
at 3 4. Therefore, ultimately, the third factor strongly favors detention.
The fourth factor also favors detention, primarily because Sutton is charged with conduct
that poses a danger to the community, and his criminal history demonstrates that there is a real risk
that, if released, he will continue to distribute narcotics into the community or otherwise violate
the conditions of supervised release. Thus, the Court finds that there are no release conditions that
could assure Sutton would not pose a danger to the community while awaiting trial, and he should
remain detained.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the findings of fact and reasons provided in this memorandum
opinion, appeals of their detention orders are denied and defendants shall remain in
the custody of the Attorney General for confinement pending a final disposition in this case.
Separate orders consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)
will be entered contemporaneously.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: October 1, 2019
12