IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

 *

 *

vs. * CRIMINAL NO. 16-00068-KD

 *

KENNETH LABARRON WILLIAMS, *

 *

Defendant. *

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Government’s Motion 

for Detention. (Doc. 68). Upon careful review of the court 

file, including the pretrial services report, the evidence 

presented at the detention hearing, which was conducted on May 

6, 2016, and applicable case law, the Court, for the reasons 

that follow, grants the Government’s motion.

Background

Defendant has been charged in a nine count indictment with 

conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of Title 21

U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to distribute marijuana in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and possession of a firearm during a 

drug trafficking crime in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

The pretrial services report (Doc. 82) reflects that Defendant is 

age 28, that he reported “on and off” employment with his uncle 

at Alexander Construction, that he listed an address of 8701 

Hamilton Brices Drive South, Mobile, Alabama, that he was 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 8
2

convicted of possession of marijuana in 2012, that he was charged 

with the state equivalent of the instant charges in March 2015, 

and that he was arrested on the instant charges when he returned 

to this country following a trip to Belize. The pretrial report 

also reflects that Defendant’s girlfriend reported that he lived 

“on and off” with her and their children at the Hamilton Brices 

Drive address, and that his other address was his grandfather’s 

residence at 803 Baltimore Street, Mobile, Alabama. 

At the detention hearing, defense counsel argued that 

Defendant is not a flight risk or a danger to the community, and 

he presented three supporting witnesses. The first witness, Mr. 

Alexander, testified that he owns a construction company, that

Defendant has worked with him since last year earning 

approximately $400 weekly, that Defendant is not related to him, 

and that Defendant could return to his job, if released. On 

cross examination, Mr. Alexander testified that Defendant is paid 

in cash, and that he was not aware that Defendant had recently 

traveled to Belize. Also presenting testimony was Mr. Cheney, 

who works for the local bonding company that secured Defendant’s 

release following his arrest on the state equivalent charges in 

March 2015. Mr. Cheney testified that he is not aware of any 

state order that restricts Defendant from traveling out of the 

country, that Defendant has returned to court when directed to do 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 8
3

so, and that Defendant notified the bonding company of his travel 

to Belize. On cross examination, Mr. Cheney testified that at 

the time Defendant secured the bond, he listed his address as 

1601 Forest Street, and listed a Baltimore Street address as an 

alternative.

Defendant’s brother, Michael Williams, also testified on his 

behalf. He testified that Defendant was residing with him and 

his family on Meadowgate Drive before his release, and that 

Defendant would also spend some nights with his girlfriend and 

his children at a Stanton Road location. 

The Government proffered evidence that when Defendant was 

arrested in March 2015, he had $11,000 in cash on his person, and 

was also in possession of a firearm. The Government also 

proffered evidence that upon his arrest in March 2015, Defendant 

provided a home address of 1601 Forest Street, which was vacant 

and had no power, that a search of a residence on Cross Creek 

Drive uncovered 50 pounds of marijuana, a semiautomatic pistol, 

scales and $600 in cash, and at the time, Defendant’s girlfriend 

reported that she and the Defendant were the only two people with 

keys to and residing in the Cross Creek Drive residence. The 

Government also asserted that by traveling outside the country, 

Defendant violated the terms of his state release.

Analysis

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, 

a defendant may be detained pending trial only after a hearing 

held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and upon a finding that 

“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 Bail Reform Act directs the Court to consider the following 

factors in determining whether there are conditions of release 

that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as 

required and the safety of any other person and the community:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense 

charged, including whether the offense is a crime 

of violence, a violation of section 1591, a 

Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor 

victim or a controlled substance, firearm, 

explosive, or destructive device;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the 

person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the 

person, including--

(A) the person's character, physical and 

mental condition, family ties, employment, 

financial resources, length of residence in 

the community, community ties, past conduct, 

history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, 

criminal history, and record concerning 

appearance at court proceedings; and

(B) whether, at the time of the current 

offense or arrest, the person was on 

probation, on parole, or on other release 

pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 8
5

completion of sentence for an offense under 

Federal, State, or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to 

any person or the community that would be posed 

by the person's release. In considering the 

conditions of release described in subsection 

(c)(1)(B)(xi) or (c)(1)(B)(xii) of this section, 

the judicial officer may upon his own motion, or 

shall upon the motion of the Government, conduct 

an inquiry into the source of the property to be 

designated for potential forfeiture or offered as 

collateral to secure a bond, and shall decline to 

accept the designation, or the use as collateral, 

of property that, because of its source, will not 

reasonably assure the appearance of the person as 

required.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

Where there is probable cause to believe that a defendant 

committed a firearm offense in violation of § 924(c), it is 

presumed, subject to rebuttal, that the defendant is both a 

flight risk and a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(e)(3)(B). An indictment suffices to invoke this 

presumption. United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th 

Cir. 1987). 

The undersigned observes, as a preliminary matter, that 

while the Government asserted during the hearing that the 

presumption does not apply in this case, the statute provides 

otherwise. In other words, because the indictment includes a 

gun charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), there is a rebuttable 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 8
6

presumption in this case that the Defendant is both a flight 

risk and a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A).

With respect to issue of flight risk, the undersigned finds 

that the Defendant has rebutted the presumption. According to 

the pretrial services report and the evidence submitted at the 

hearing, Defendant is a lifelong resident of this area and has 

strong ties to the community. Further, while there is evidence 

that Defendant recently traveled to Belize to celebrate his 

birthday, that he gave officers false information regarding his 

residence, and that family members also gave conflicting and 

misleading evidence regarding his residence, there is likewise 

evidence that he has a number of relatives, including his 

children, his mother, and his brother residing in this area, 

that he has lived here most of his life, that he has appeared in 

court when directed to do so, and that he has employment, albeit

questionable. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, 

the undersigned finds that Defendant has rebutted the 

presumption that he is a flight risk and that there are 

conditions, such as home confinement and electronic monitoring,

that would reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance.

Turning next to the danger issue, the undersigned finds 

that Defendant has not rebutted the resumption that he is a 

danger to the community. First, the Government’s case against 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 8
7

Defendant is strong, thus making it more likely that if he 

stands trial, he will be convicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2). 

As noted, the Government has proffered evidence that on March 3, 

2015, Defendant was arrested with $11,500 in cash and a firearm, 

although his alleged earnings are between $300 and $400 weekly. 

Further, a search of his residence, which Defendant sought to 

conceal, yielded 50 pounds of marijuana, $600 in cash, a

semiautomatic firearm, and a scale. Additionally, Defendant has 

a prior drug conviction and faces substantial jail time if 

convicted of the instant charges. While defense counsel argued 

that electronic monitoring would adequately address the danger 

issue, the undersigned finds that such would not prevent 

Defendant’s involvement with criminal activity if he were so 

inclined. This is particularly true given the fact that family 

members appear complicit in assisting Defendant in providing 

conflicting and misleading information to the Court regarding 

Defendant’s residence. Accordingly, the undersigned finds, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant has not rebutted 

the presumption that he is a danger to the community and that 

there are no conditions that will reasonably assure the safety 

of the community. Thus, Defendant shall be detained.

Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 8
8

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver Defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding.

DONE this 13th day of May, 2016.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cr-00068-KD-C Document 95 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 8