United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-3027 September Term, 2020

1:21-cr-00088-DLF-1

Filed On: July 9, 2021

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Ronald L. Sandlin,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers, Millett, and Katsas, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. 

The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.

See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s pretrial detention order

entered on April 13, 2021 be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court

clearly erred in finding that no condition or combination of conditions of release would

reasonably assure the safety of the community and the appearance of appellant. See

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1); United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1282 (D.C. Cir.

2021); United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546, 551 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

As we explained in Munchel, “those who actually assaulted police officers and

broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with,

planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than

those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way.” 

Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284. Based on the government’s proffered evidence, including

video recordings, the district court here found that appellant coordinated with others

and prepared for violence in the days and weeks leading up to January 6, 2021, that

appellant expressed a willingness to use force to occupy the Capitol on the day of

January 6, and that appellant actually committed violent acts once inside the Capitol

that day. Specifically, the district court found that appellant joined a group of protestors

that overpowered several police officers who were defending the Capitol, allowing other
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-3027 September Term, 2020

individuals to enter the building through an exterior door; that appellant, during this

altercation, pulled on an officer’s helmet in an apparent attempt to remove it; and that

appellant, in a separate incident, struck another officer who was attempting to secure

doors to the Senate chamber. The district court further found that, in the weeks after

January 6, appellant “crisscross[ed] the country” to evade law enforcement, used

encrypted communications, and deleted incriminating social media posts. Appellant

has not shown that these findings were clearly erroneous, nor has he shown that the

district court failed to hold the government to its burden of proof. See id. at 1280;

Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d at 551. Finally, because appellant did not preserve his

challenge to the district court’s consideration of his tax debt as part of its detention

analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), review is for plain error, which appellant has not

shown. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993); United States v. Brown,

892 F.3d 385, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

Red. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Scott H. Atchue

Deputy Clerk

Page 2