1 16-1761-cr United States v. Galanis UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECO ND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DA TABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courth ouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20 th day of July, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges

.

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee , v. No. 16-1761-cr JASON GALANIS, Defendant-Appellant , JOHN GALANIS, AKA “YANNI,” JARED GALANIS, GARY HIRST, DEREK GALANIS, YMER SHAHINI, and GAVIN HAMELS, Defendants

. *

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- FOR APPELLANT: Marion Bachra ch, Thompson & Knight LLP, New York, New York. FOR APPELLEE: Brian R. Blais, Assistant United States Attorney, for Preet Bharara, United States

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.2 Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (P. Kevin Castel, Judge ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order revoking bail, entered on May 18, 2016, is AFFIRMED. Defendant Jason Galanis—who stands i ndicted for investment advisor fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, an d conspiracy to commit secur ities fraud and wire fraud, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff, 80b-6, 80b-17; 18 U. S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1343, 1349; 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5—challenges the district court’s revocation of bail pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (authorizing appellate review of pretrial detention orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291). Ga lanis moves to stay the district court’s revocation order pending appeal and for e xpedited appeal. We hereby GRANT the motion to expedite and proceed to address the merits because both sides have fully briefed the bail appeal and Galanis’s trial is scheduled to begin on September 12, 2016. On appeal from an order revoking bail pending tria l, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130 (2d Cir. 2000). In doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts a nd record of prior proceedings , which we reference only as necessary to explain our deci sion to affirm revocation. The district court revoked bail based on a finding that Galanis acted to further the objectives of a different securities fraud cons piracy alleged in a May 11, 2016 Southern3 District complaint by sending a letter, dated Fe bruary 17, 2016, to i ndividuals associated with the Wakpamni Lake Community Corpora tion (the “WLCC”). Galanis argues that the securities fraud conspiracy alleged in th e May 11, 2016 complaint was complete prior to September 24, 2015—when he was initially granted bail in this case. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the dist rict court’s probable cause finding of Galanis’s continued criminal activity while on releas e. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A). This finding, moreover, triggered a statutory presumption that “no condition or combination of conditions” wo uld assure the comm unity’s safety, id. § 3148(b)(2)(A), and Galanis here identifies no evidence to rebut this presumption, see id. § 3148(b). While he urges a more beni gn construction of the February 17, 2016 letter, probable cause does not require refuta tion of every possible innocent explanation for the conduct at issue. See Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 157 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing as “well established” principl e that probable cause showing “cannot be negated simply by demonstrating that an in ference of innocence might also have been drawn from the facts alleged”). Indeed, pr obable cause requires “only that the facts available to the judicial officer ‘warrant a ma n of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the defendant has committed a crim e while on bail.” United States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 777 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Te xas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983)); accord United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 43 8, 456–57 (2d Cir. 2004) (observi ng this standard “does not demand certainty but only a ‘fair probability’ that . . . eviden ce of a crime will be found” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983))). We, therefore, identify no error in the inferences the district court drew from the content of th e letter or its transmission,4 which were sufficient to establish probable ca use to believe that Galanis was continuing to further the WLCC fraud, not simply to conceal it. Galanis faults the district court for faili ng to conduct an eviden tiary hearing before making its probable cause finding. In fact, Judge Castel acted within his discretion in proceeding based on the government’s proffer and his review of the February 17, 2016 letter and May 11, 2016 complaint. See Unite d States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 130– 31 (recognizing that “proffers are permissi ble both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts”). Further, the district c ourt afforded Galanis th e opportunity to call witnesses and provide evidence of his own, both of which he declined. Cf. United States v. Davis, 845 F.2d 41 2, 415 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding that, under § 3148, defendants are entitled to “a further oppor tunity to testify on their own behalf and to present evidence to demonstrate that revocation of bail is not merited”). In these circumstances, we identify no procedural error. Accordingly, Galanis’s motion to expedite the appeal is GRANTED, the district court’s revocation order is AFFIRMED, and Galanis’s motion for a stay is DISMISSED

as moot. 1
FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLF E, Clerk of Court

1 Insofar as Galanis moves to s eal portions of the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, that motion is GRANTED as unopposed.