1

21-2241-cr

United States v. Adams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND 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 database (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 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 8th day of December, two thousand twenty-one.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 21-2241-cr

MELVON ADAMS, AKA Sealed Defendant,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

FOR APPELLEE: Alexandra Rothman, Assistant United 

States Attorney, for Damian Williams, 

United States Attorney for the Southern 

District of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Christine Delince, The Law Offices of 

Onaodowan and Delince, PLLC, New 

York, NY.
2

Appeal from an order, entered September 14, 2021, by the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of New York (Alvin K. Hellerstein, Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 14, 2021 order of the District Court be and 

hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Melvon Adams appeals from an order denying him bail pending trial on a charge 

of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We 

review a district court’s bail determination for clear error and will not reverse “unless on the entire 

evidence we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We 

detect no such error in this case.

Adams concedes that, given the nature of the present charge and the circumstances of his

previous convictions, a “rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of 

conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(e)(2). In light of this statutory presumption, Adams bears “a limited burden of production,” 

though “not a burden of persuasion,” “to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence 

that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 

F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam). If he is able to meet this burden of production, “the 

presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered 

among those weighed by the district court.” Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) (identifying relevant 

factors to include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the 

evidence against the defendant, (3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and 

seriousness of the danger to the community posed by pre-trial release).

Here, the District Court concluded that Adams was unable to overcome the statutory 

presumption “given his involvement in acts of extreme violence and gang affiliation,” District Court 

Order, ECF No. 24, a conclusion which we agree is amply supported by the record.1

 In particular, 

Adams was convicted as a youthful offender of assault in the first degree after he shot two 

individuals in 2012. After he was arrested for the 2012 shooting and while he was released on bail, 

1 The District Court made no finding about Adams’s risk of flight, and Adams’ arguments in 

the present motion are restricted to challenging the District Court’s findings concerning 

dangerousness.
3

Adams again shot another person in 2014, for which he was convicted as an adult of attempted 

murder. Moreover, while he was incarcerated for the offenses, he was disciplined for gang activity. 

In these circumstances, and particularly in light of Adams’s pattern of violence, the District 

Court committed no error, let alone clear error, in determining that Adams’s proposed bail 

conditions — a $100,000 bond co-signed by three individuals, home incarceration with GPS 

monitoring, travel restrictions, the surrendering of all travel documents, and his relocation from the 

Bronx to Brooklyn — could not reasonably assure the safety of the community. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Adams’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we AFFIRM the District Court’s September 14, 2021 order 

and DENY Adams’s pending motion for bail filed on October 15, 2021.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk