Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cr-00255/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cr-00255-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Lee McCurin
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES LEE MCCURIN,

Defendant.

No. 2:06-cr-00255-MCE

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant James Lee McCurin’s (“Defendant”) 

Motion to Revoke Detention Order (ECF No. 48) by which Defendant contends that in 

light of developments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, he should be released based 

on his age (i.e., 62 years old) and status as a diabetic.1 For the following reasons, that 

Motion is DENIED. 

///

///

///

///

1 Defendant’s Request to Seal Exhibit A - Mr. James Lee McCurin’s Medical Records and Exhibit 

F - Presentence Investigation Report is GRANTED so that the medical information and Presentence 

Investigation Report are not available on the public docket. The records are to be provided to the Court 

and opposing counsel and shall remain under seal until further Order of the Court. 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

BACKGROUND

In October 2006, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent 

to Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced on April 24, 2007, 

to a prison term of one hundred and twenty (120) months followed by a sixty (60) month 

term of supervised release and was released in February 2015. 

Defendant is now back in custody and charged by Petition (ECF No. 33) with 

violating the terms of his supervision. According to the Petition, on February 27, 2019, 

Defendant was arrested by California Highway Patrol officers after they observed the 

vehicle Defendant was driving speeding and weaving. During the course of that stop, a 

K-9 alerted to the vehicle, which led to a search that uncovered 7-9 ounces of 

individually packaged “crack” cocaine and $3,000 in currency in the center console. 

Defendant completed a state custodial sentence before being remanded to 

federal custody this year. He made his initial appearance in this district on March 27, 

2020, and a detention hearing was held that same day. The magistrate judge ordered 

further briefing, continued the matter, and eventually ordered Defendant detained on 

April 2, 2020. Defendant seeks de novo review of that decision here. 

ANALYSIS

A person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release may be 

released or detained under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6). 

“The burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the person will not 

flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the person.” 

Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) (Detention is mandatory “unless the judicial officer 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a 

danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 

3142(b) or (c).”). Having conducted an independent review of both the law and the 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

record in this case, the Court determines that detention is warranted. 

The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly, given the “unprecedented 

magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic.” United States v. Martin, 2020 WL 1274857, at 

*2 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2020). “While correctional officials . . . may successfully have dealt 

with past viruses and outbreaks of communicable diseases, they pale in scope with the 

magnitude and speed of transmission of COVID-19.” Id. “This virus comes in the form 

of a world-wide pandemic, resulting in a declaration of a national emergency by the 

federal government, and state of emergency by the State of [California].” Id. “With no 

known effective treatment, and vaccines months (or more) away, public health officials 

have been left to urge the public to practice ‘social distancing,’ frequent (and thorough) 

hand washing, and avoidance of close contact with others (in increasingly more 

restrictive terms)—all of which are extremely difficult to implement in a detention 

facility.” Id. “For this reason, the Court takes this health risk extremely seriously . . . . ” 

Id. Regardless, though, a determination of whether this Defendant should be released 

requires an individualized assessment of the relevant factors, which here point to the 

conclusion that Defendant poses a danger to the community and may be a flight risk. 

Without more, the facts that Defendant is aging and has diabetes do not justify 

release. To the contrary, Defendant’s arrest underlying the current petition occurred 

when he was already in his sixties, he had fairly recently served a ten-year sentence in 

the Bureau of Prisons, and he knew he was still under formal supervision. He was 

nonetheless caught speeding and weaving in and out of traffic with a significant amount 

of individually packaged crack cocaine and cash in his car. All of this exists against a 

backdrop of a criminal history dating back to the late 1970s. History indicates that 

Defendant will continue to traffic if released and thus he presents a substantial danger to 

the community. Indeed, “[t]he best predictor of how [Defendant] will behave if he were to 

be released is how he has behaved when released in the past, and his track record is a 

poor one.” Id. at *4.

/// 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Moreover, the fact that this Defendant cannot be trusted to follow the law is no 

longer just a source of concern to the extent he may continue to contribute to the cycle 

of drugs and violence that accompany trafficking crimes. Instead, Defendant’s 

unwillingness or inability to adhere to directives is now an even more fundamental 

danger to the community. The Government aptly made this point in briefing before the 

magistrate judge: 

The entire State of California is currently ordered to shelter in 

place and “heed the current State public health directives,” 

indefinitely, to avoid the spread of COVID-19. California 

Executive Order N-33-20, available at 

https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive-Order-N-33-20.pdf 

(issued March 19, 2020). Such rules, though enforced by 

peace officers, rely largely on voluntary obedience. A person 

who ignores such admonitions and rules could increase 

infection rates, leading to severe illness and death. 

[Defendant] has shown an unwillingness or inability to follow 

rules, and a disregard for the welfare of others, as the pending 

petition for supervised release demonstrates. More to the 

point, if released, asking a Probation Officer in the current 

environment to monitor someone of [Defendant’s] criminal 

pedigree amounts to an impossible task.

Gov. Brief in Supp. of Det., ECF No. 45, at 4. Based on Defendant’s repeated and 

extensive refusal to follow the criminal laws, the Court sees no reason that Defendant 

would choose to adhere to the essentially voluntary mandates currently governing our 

collective society, and releasing him now would thus pose even more of a danger to the 

public than it would absent the pandemic.2 

2 The Court also notes that Defendant has pointed to no authority or case-specific facts supporting

the proposition that the existence of a pandemic itself, even when coupled which the facts that Defendant

is over 60 and diabetic, provides a basis for release. As set forth previously by another court in this 

district, “although the COVID-19 situation is an extraordinary one for the population at large in this country, 

including prisoners, and without diminishing in the least the fact that [Defendant] is part of an especially atrisk COVID-19 population, [Defendant] has not shown that prison [or jail] authorities are unable or unwilling 

to address this serious problem within [facilities], or that [Defendant] is unable to take the general, 

protective measures applicable to all as of yet unafflicted persons, i.e., wash hands frequently, avoid 

touching the face and so forth.” Peterson v. Diaz, Case No. 2:19-cv-01480, ECF No. 32, at 4. “Moreover, 

. . . authorities may be able to isolate highly at-risk prisoners, such as [Defendant], more easily than

isolation or ‘social distancing’ is achieved in the general population, e.g., housing in administrative 

segregation, partial lockdowns or transfers.” Id. “Prisons [and jails] are certainly able to order their 

afflicted employees to stay at home, and can probably, more easily find testing opportunities for their 

essential employees than is yet possible for the general population.” Id. “Finally, prison and [other]

officials are more likely to know who may be best subject to compassionate release under state laws than 

is the undersigned.” Id. In light of all of the foregoing factors, and the fact Defendant has not pointed to 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Nor can the forgoing risk be alleviated even by conditions as onerous as home 

confinement. Although Defendant contends his wife will “welcome” his return to their 

home, Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 48, at 3, this argument is especially problematic because 

release to his wife puts him right back where he was arrested with regard to his initial 

crack offense. Accordingly, the Court can think of no conditions of release that would 

address the dangers Defendant poses to the public. To that end, the Court agrees with 

the observations in Martin: 

While . . . location monitoring . . . may offer useful information 

about where [a defendant] is, it provides little useful 

information about what he is doing, and the ready accessibility 

of smart phones and digital communication devices would 

make it all too easy for him to resume his involvement (directly 

or through confederates) in the distribution of controlled 

substances without detection. Moreover, location monitoring 

is not a limitless resource, nor is its installation and monitoring 

by United States Pretrial Services officers without risk to those 

personnel (who must be trained and certified to install location 

monitoring) given the current recommendations regarding 

implementation of social distancing.

2020 WL 1274857, at *4. Not only would location monitoring not provide information on 

any potential, and likely, trafficking activities, it would provide no information as to third 

parties frequenting Defendant’s residence in violation of social distancing requirements. 

It follows that Defendant has not met his burden of showing he is not a danger to the 

community or that any such danger could be alleviated by imposing specific conditions of 

release. If the knowledge that Defendant was on federal supervised release was not 

enough to dissuade him from continuing to engage in large-scale drug trafficking

operations, especially at an age far mature enough to know better, the Court fails to see 

how the threat of contracting COVID-19, a threat that exists even in the community at 

large, will do the trick.

///

/// 

any diagnosed case of COVID-19 in the Sacramento County Jail in the first instance, general reliance on a 

pandemic to justify release is unpersuasive. 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Revoke Detention Order, 

ECF No. 48, is DENIED, and his Request to Seal, ECF No. 49, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2020

Case 2:06-cr-00255-MCE Document 51 Filed 04/08/20 Page 6 of 6