# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-3219 September Term, 2023 1: 22-c r-003 03-A BJ-4 Filed O n: Janu ary9, 202 4 United Sta tes o f

Am erica, App ellee

v
. And re Alon te W illis, also kno w n a s Bo ogie,

App ellant
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Kat sas, Ra o, a nd Garcia, Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the m em oran da of law and fact f iled b y

the pa rties. T he court has det ermin ed tha t th e issue s prese nte d o ccasion no ne ed for an op inion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 3 6. Upon con siderat ion o f the foregoing, th e m otion for lea v e to supp lem entthe ap pen dix unde r seal, and the lodged sea led su pple me nta l app end ix , it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion for lea ve to sup plem entthe ap pen dix unde r seal b e grant ed. T he Clerk is directed to f ile the lodged sup plem ent al ap pen dix unde r seal. It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Oct obe r 11, 202 3 o rder de nying ap pellan t’s m otion to reop en the de ten tion hea ring be a f f irmed

. App ellantasse rts tha t th e d istrict court’s d ecision shou ld be revi ewed for clea r error. See also United Sta tes v. Hale-Cusa nelli, 3 F.4t h 4 49, 45 4 (D.C. Cir. 20 21) (sta ting tha t the cou rt “rev iew [s] rele ase and de ten tion orde rs pursua nt t o th e B ail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 31 42 et se q., for clea r error”). Assum ing w ithou t de ciding tha t a clear e rror stan dard ap plies, a ppe llant h as n ot d em onst rated tha t th e d istrict court cle arly erred by f inding th at h e failed to id ent if y an y “informa tion [tha t] e x ists tha t was not known to [him ] at t he time of

the he aring and tha t ha s a m ate rial bea ring on th e issue w het her t here are co nditio ns o f

relea se th at will reaso nab ly assu re [h is] ap pea rance

. . . as required and the safety of

an y oth er pe rson a nd the com mu nity.” 18 U.S .C. § 314 2(f )(2).

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-3219 September Term, 2023

Accordin g to ap pellan t, e v iden ce p rodu ced by the governme nt in dicate s tha t he and his co -defend ant s were in volved in th e sa le of do gs, rathe r tha n f irearms. Bu t he has notsup porte d th at a ssertion by point ing to a ny specif ic evidence notkno w n to him at t he time of

the de ten tion hea ring. In a dditio n, t o th e e xten t ap pellan t argues tha t a particu lar set of

text m essages b etween h imse lf , a co-de fend ant , an d a not her in divi dua l refer to the sale of

a d og, he ha s no t sho w n th e d istrict court cle arly erred by conclud ing tha t th e a rg um entwas “feeb le” in light of oth er evidence – in cluding ad dition al te xt me ssages as well as gun s, am mu nition , dru gs, and m one y recovered d uring searche s. In its origi nal d ecision, m oreo v er, th e d istrict court h ad foun d th at re lease con dition s would reaso nab ly

assu re ne ither a ppe llant’s a ppe aran ce a s required n or th e sa fety of oth er ind iv idua ls and the com mu nity. In t his ap pea l, ap pellan t ha s no t argued tha t th e district cou rt clearly erred by f inding th at h is mo tion to re ope n failed to id ent if y previously

un known informa tion conce rning the issue of f lig ht risk. App ellant ’s rema ining argume nts a ppe ar to cha llenge th e d istrict court’s Ju ly 6, 202 3 o rder de nying his b ond revi ew motio n. However, app ellantdid notf ile a n otice of app eal u ntil Octo ber 3 1, 2 023 – a f ter th e o rder de nying his m otion to reop en – a nd the not ice of ap pea l did n ot re feren ce th e Ju ly 6 o rder. Mo reover, altho ugh th e d istrict court grant ed a m otion by app ellantfor an extension of tim e to no tice a n a ppe al, th e m otion sought an extension on ly for an ap pea l f rom the Octo ber 1 1 o rder. A ppe llant h as n ot respo nde d to ap pellee ’s cont ent ion t hatthe July 6 orde r was n ot t ime ly ap pea led a nd is notprop erly

be fore t his cou rt. Ap pellan t th erefore h as forfeited the issue. Se e Unite d Sta tes e x

rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2