Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cr-00866/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cr-00866-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Handell Holloway
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Shawn Handell Holloway, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-11-866-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

This case arises on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Reconsider Detention Order,

filed on September 28, 2011. (Doc. 34) Because the undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted

Defendant’s June 2, 2011detention hearing and no review or appeal was taken of the June

8, 2011detention order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145, the assigned District Judge, the

Honorable G. Murray Snow, referred the Amended Motion to Reconsider to the undersigned

“to make appropriate findings and orders[]” pursuant to the District Court’s general practice

on requests for reconsideration of orders. (Doc. 35) The Government has not responded to

the Amended Motion nor does the Amended Motion state the Government’s position on

Defendant’s request for a second detention.

I. Background

The docket reflects that a multi-count indictment was returned against Defendant on

May 2, 2011, charging him with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana

(Count 1), a Class A felony; Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine (Count

Case 2:11-cr-00866-GMS Document 39 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 5
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

 A transcript of the June 8, 2011detention hearing was ordered by the Government

on September 23, 2011, doc. 31, but the Court has not been provided a copy. The Court has

no independent recollection of the hearing’s details, it believes that defense counsel

accurately states that the Court “[f]ound that Mr. Holloway had not overcome the

presumption that he was a [serious] flight risk in this matter . . . .” in light of the grand jury’s

finding of probable cause on the charges in Counts 1 and 2. See, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) which

creates a rebuttable presumption of detention upon a finding of probable cause that certain

crimes were committed. Note: if counsel is correct, as the Court believes he is, the words

“and the safety of the community[]” on page one of the detention order should have been

stricken.

- 2 -

2), a Class A felony; Conspiracy to Commit Promotional and Concealment Money

Laundering (Count 3), a Class C felony; Laundering of Monetary Instruments (Count 4), a

Class C felony; and Engaging in Monetary Transactions (Count 5), a Class C felony. (Doc.

3)

Defendant was arrested on May 10, 2011 in the Northern District of Ohio. (Doc. 9)

At his initial appearance on the same date in Ohio, Defendant reserved his right to a detention

hearing in the District of Arizona. (Doc. 10) On May 20, 2011 at his Arizona initial

appearance and arraignment, Defendant was appointed CJA counsel and entered not guilty

pleas to all counts. At the Government’s request, Defendant remained temporarily detained

until a detention hearing was eventually held on June 2, 2011. (Docs. 15-16) At the

detention hearing, Defendant was detained as a serious flight risk.1

 (Docs. 16-17) The trial

was recently continued to February 7, 2012. (Doc. 38)

II. Reconsideration of Detention Orders

Title 18 U.S.C. §3142(f) expressly provides that a detention hearing:

[m]ay be reopened at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information

exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a

material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will

reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any

other person and the community. 

18 U.S.C. §3142(f); United States v. Jacquot, 2011 WL 1636943, * 2 (S.D.Cal. April 29,

2011); United States v. Simpson, 2010 WL 129793, * 3 (D.Utah January 8, 2010). Thus, the

“movant”, whether prosecutor or defendant, must establish: 1) that information now exists

Case 2:11-cr-00866-GMS Document 39 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

that was not known to the movant at the time of the initial detention hearing, and 2) the new

information is material to release conditions regarding flight or dangerousness. United States

v. Bowens, 2007 WL 2220501, * 1 (D.Ariz., July 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Hare, 873

F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (testimony of defendant’s family and friends is not new evidence to

warrant reopening of detention). 

The rationale for the rule is discussed in United States v. Flores, 856 F. Supp.

1400 (E.D.Cal. 1994) wherein a defendant’s motion to reopen detention hearing was denied.

“A rule that would not discourage a party for failing to acquire readily available evidence

for presentation the first time is a rule that encourages piecemeal presentations. Judicial

efficiency is not served by such a practice.” Bowens, 2007 WL 2220501 at 2 (emphasis

added). See also, United States v. Ward, 235 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1185 (N.D.Okl. 2002) (in

denying a motion to reopen the issue of pretrial detention, magistrate judge observed that

“the proffered information about Defendant’s background, ties to the community and

employment history were all known” at the time of the detention hearing) (citing United

States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991)). 

The Court agrees with this California Magistrate Judge that “[o]nce a hearing

is reopened, . . . it is reopened for the purpose of the court’s receiving any information,

within reason, not submitted at the original detention hearing.” United States v. Barksdale,

2008 WL 2620380, * 2 n. 3 (E.D.Cal., July 1, 2008) “The purpose of such a rule is to allow

the new information justifying reopening to be considered in context, taking into account

information either side may have gathered. Any information presented is, of course, subject

to the court’s own weighing of the evidence in light of all relevant factors, including the

timing of its disclosure.” (Id.)

III. Discussion

Under the heading “NEW EVIDENCE”, Defendant’s Amended Motion that

indicates that “Mr. Holloway has additional information and evidence that merits the Court

herein to reconsider the prior detention order, including without limitation the following: 

1) Mr. Holloway was born in Cleveland, Ohio and educated there in the public school

Case 2:11-cr-00866-GMS Document 39 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

system.

2) Mr. Holloway has been involved in a long-term relationship and has minor

children.

3) Mr. Holloway has copies of voluminous business records of Shawn Construction

Inc. showing that he has been involved in the remodeling and restoration of residential

and small commercial properties for many years.

4) Since Mr. Holloway’s arrest, counsel has acquired, and shall provide to this

Honorable Court, A.U.S.A. Karen McDonald and Pre-trial services the exact address

of where Mr. Holloway will be residing with the other residents also residing there,

and land line to said residence.

5) Mr. Holloway does not possess a passport at this time.

6) Other than the overt acts associated with the current matter, Mr. Holloway has no

other criminal record.

(Doc. 34 at 3-4) Defendant contends that this is “new information . . . that was not known

to him at the time of hearing and that have a bearing on the issue of whether there are

conditions of release the (sic) will reasonably assure his appearance and respectfully requests

the opportunity to present the same.” (Id.) (emphasis added). “If permitted to present same,

Mr. Holloway alleges that the new evidence will be sufficient to overcome the presumption

that he is a flight risk.” (Id.) (emphasis added). The Court disagrees that this information

constitutes new evidence “not known to the movant at the time of the [initial detention]

hearing.” 18 U.S.C. §3142(f).

All the information proffered as “new” is personal to Defendant. It distorts reality and

Defendant’s credibility that Defendant did not know at the time of the June 2, 2011 detention

hearing where he was born, educated, or that he has been involved in a long-term relationship

and has minor children. Assuming Defendant has had a legitimate remodeling and restoration

construction business “for many years”, he certainly knew where his business records were

or could be located at the time of his detention hearing. Defendant’s Ohio Pretrial Services

Report, doc. 37, essentially contains all the so-called “new information” which was provided

directly to the PTS Officer from Defendant during his interview which was verified by his

mother, Susan Searcy. This Report further refutes Defendant’s claim that he has no criminal

record “[o]ther than the overt acts associated with the current matter.” (Doc. 34 at 4)

Case 2:11-cr-00866-GMS Document 39 Filed 10/06/11 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Interestingly, if Defendant is referring to his drug trafficking conviction in Cleveland, Ohio

in July, 2007 as part of Defendant’s “overt acts associated with the current” Arizona

indictment which alleges a drug trafficking conspiracy spanning from March 25, 2005 to

June 1, 2010, one may consider either the strength of the Government’s case on the

conspiracy charge against Defendant or, as the Ohio PTS’ officer did, Defendant may have

participated in illegal drug trafficking while he was on probation. Of course, Defendant knew

or should have known at his detention hearing whether he had a passport.

Recognizing he enjoys the presumption of innocence, Defendant is facing a statutory

mandatory minimum of, at least, 10 years in prison if convicted of either Count 1 or 2.

Because the Court found that, among other things, the “Government appears to have a strong

case against Defendant” and believes Defendant is not safety-valve eligible due to the 2007

felony conviction, the Court may properly consider Defendant’s motivation to flee. See,

United States v. Gentry, 455 F.Supp.2d 1018, 1020 (D.Ariz. 2006) (“[D]istrict court [may]

consider possible punishment as an incentive for a defendant to flee in assessing a

defendant’s risk of flight.”) (citing United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir.

1990)). Defendant should remain detained as both PTS’ officers in the Northern District of

Ohio and District of Arizona have recommended. (Docs. 36 at 1, 37 at 4)

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Amended Motion to Reconsider Detention, doc.

34, is DENIED for failure to set forth a material change in circumstances to justify setting

a second release hearing. 

Dated this 6th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cr-00866-GMS Document 39 Filed 10/06/11 Page 5 of 5