Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190723_0001117.WLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 09:58:58
Document Index: 491993695

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

FindACase™ | United States v. Goings
NICOLE GOINGS AND DAVID RAY JOHNSON
Before the Court are Motions to Quash Indictment (“Motion to Quash”) [Doc. Nos. 80 & 95] filed by Defendant David Ray Johnson (“Johnson”) and Lakendria Nicole Goings (“Goings”) respectively. Additionally, Johnson, with leave of Court, has joined in the arguments made by Goings in her separate motion [Doc. No. 106]. For the following reasons, both Motions to Quash are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move to quash Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment, the motions are GRANTED, and Count 1 is QUASHED as to both Defendants. To the extent that Defendants move to quash Counts 3, 6, and 8, the motion is DENIED. Finally, to the extent that Johnson filed his Motion to Quash prior to the Superseding Indictment and sought to quash counts contained in the original Indictment, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
On June 27, 2018, Goings and Johnson were originally charged in a nine-count Indictment. Both Defendants were charged in 7 counts as follows: Conspiracy to Violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to Use, Carry, Brandish, and Discharge Firearms During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (Count 1); Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) & § 2 (Count 2); Use, Carry, and Brandish a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2 (Count 3); Credit Union Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), & 2 (Count 5); Use, Carry, and Brandish a Firearm During and in Relation to a Violent Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2 (Count 6); Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), & 2 (Count 7); Use, Carry, and Brandish a Firearm During Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2 (Count 8). Johnson was also charged in Counts 4 and 9 with Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
On that same day, Johnson and Goings were arrested.
On June 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes also granted the Government's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum as to both Defendants.
On July 11, 2018, Defendants made their initial appearances before Magistrate Judge Hayes. Goings, who was represented by counsel, was arraigned and pled not guilty. Magistrate Judge Hayes also found that Goings was not eligible for release. She likewise found that Johnson was not eligible for release at the time, but set another arraignment and detention hearing, so that he could be represented by counsel.
On July 13, 2018, another hearing was held, Johnson was arraigned and pled not guilty. He was determined not to be eligible for release.
After further proceedings, on June 19, 2019, a status conference was held, and counsel for the Government advised that he was presenting the matter to a grand jury for a superseding indictment.
On June 25, 2019, Johnson filed a Motion to Quash Indictment [Doc. No. 80].
On June 26, 2019, a Superseding Indictment [Doc. No. 82] was filed against Goings and Johnson. The Superseding Indictment also contains seven counts against both Defendants and two additional counts against Johnson. In Count 1, Defendants are charged, as they were in the original Indictment, with Conspiracy to Violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to Use, Carry, Brandish, and Discharge Firearms During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o). Count 1 further incorporates the charges in Counts 2 through 9 of the Superseding Indictment. However, in Counts 3, 6, and 8, the Superseding Indictment now specifically charges that the pending counts of using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging of a firearm during a crime of violence are brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2. They were arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges.
On the same day, Magistrate Judge Hayes held a pre-trial conference with counsel. ...