UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-20674

ANTHONY A. JAMES,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LIMITED RELEASE FROM

DETENTION TO OBTAIN RECORDS

Before the court is Defendant Anthony A. James’ motion for limited release from

detention to obtain records, filed on April 8, 2010. For the reasons stated below, the

court will deny the motion.

In a Second Superseding Indictment, Defendant has been charged with seven

counts of mail fraud, seven counts of wire fraud, and one count of theft or

embezzlement from an Employee Benefit Plan. (11/24/09 Second Superseding

Indictment.) The Second Superseding Indictment was issued after Defendant was

alleged to have committed further acts of fraud while he was released pending his trial

on the earlier indictment. (Gov’t’s 12/14/09 Resp. at 2.) Defendant was subsequently

detained because the court found that “there is a serious risk that the defendant will not

appear and will not obey any conditions of release” and that “there is a serious risk that

the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.” (12/7/09

Order of Detention Pending Trial.) Defendant’s trial on the Second Superseding

Indictment is scheduled to begin on April 12, 2010. 
2

Defendant now seeks release from custody so that he can travel to his house in

Fort Lauderdale, Florida to obtain certain documentation that he alleges will contest the

accuracy of an affidavit produced by a Securities and Exchange Commission

Accountant, Karaz S. Zaki. (Def.’s Mot. ¶¶ 12-13.) Defendant asserts, without

explanation, that he is the only person who is able to locate and secure this

documentation. (Id. ¶ 14.) His counsel asserts that, based on Defendant’s

representations, this documentation is necessary to effectively represent Defendant. 

(Id. ¶ 15.)

A defendant awaiting trial shall be detained if “no condition or combination of

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 court is to

consider four factors to determine whether there are conditions that will reasonably

assure the appearance of a defendant: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the

offense; (2) the weight of the evidence; (3) the history and characteristics of the

defendant; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the

community.” United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401, 410-11 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing 18

U.S.C. § 3142(g)).

The court finds that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably

assure that Defendant will appear for his trial if he were permitted to go to Florida. 18

U.S.C. § 3142. The court understands from counsels’ presentations on the record that

Defendant is alleged to have defrauded investors out of some $2,500,000.00, much of

which is unaccounted for and, presumably, some portion of which may yet be
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\08-20674.JAMES.Deny.Release.npk.2.wpd

3

accessible to Defendant. A defendant with possible access to substantial capital could

acquire the means to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and elude capture.

In addition, Defendant is alleged in the indictment to have committed further

crimes while initially released pending trial, and the factual circumstances underlying the

counts brought against Defendant indicate a lack of trustworthiness. These factors

weigh against releasing Defendant on the eve of trial.

Moreover, Defendant has been charged with many serious offenses and is facing

what the Government estimates as Sentencing Guidelines range of 121-151 months

imprisonment if convicted. A substantial potential penalty provides an increasingly

substantial motive to abscond. Defendant’s potential incarceration exposure was

presented to him in great detail at his pretrial conference which was held on April 7,

2010. On the eve of trial, having been so recently confronted with these calculations,

the court believes that any motive to flee would wax particularly strong. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for limited release from detention [Dkt.

# 35] is DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 9, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522