Court Opinion

ID: 9554256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 15:01:13.01901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:57.969337
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-3082                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                   1:23-cr-00166-DLF-1
                                                      Filed On: August 8, 2023
United States of America,

                Appellee

       v.

Firoz Patel,

                Appellant

               ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:        Henderson, Walker, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. The
court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See
D.C. Cir. Rule 36. It is

       ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 31, 2023 order
granting the government’s motion for revocation of the magistrate judge’s release order
and ordering appellant detained pending trial be affirmed. Appellant has not
demonstrated that the court clearly erred in finding that no condition or combination of
conditions would reasonably assure his appearance as required. See United States v.
Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th 449, 454-55 (D.C. Cir. 2021); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

       The district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant’s history and
characteristics favored detention. See id. § 3142(g)(3). Appellant acknowledges that
his Canadian citizenship and residency weigh against his release. Furthermore, while
he challenges the court’s determination that he has access to substantial
cryptocurrency resources, the government’s representations concerning the matter
were based on the blockchain analysis conducted during the investigation, not mere
speculation. Appellant also emphasizes that he was released and complied with his
appearance obligations in a prior criminal case. However, he was on release in the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-3082                                                September Term, 2022

prior case at the time of the offenses at issue here, and deceit and willingness to defy
the court support detention. See id. § 3142(g)(3)(B); United States v. Berkun, 392 Fed.
Appx. 901, 903 (3d Cir. 2010). Furthermore, if convicted of the instant offenses,
appellant faces a substantial prison term that weighs in favor of detention, see United
States v. Brennerman, 705 Fed. Appx. 13, 15 (2d Cir. 2017), regardless of his sentence
in the prior case.

        As for the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g)(1), the court explained why they favored detention and did not clearly err in
that finding. Specifically, there was no clear error in the court’s determination that the
offenses involved deceptive and highly technical means. Nor was there any clear error
in the court’s consideration of the timing of the offenses and the alleged involvement of
funds subject to forfeiture in the prior case.

       Regarding the weight of the evidence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2), the court did
not clearly err in finding that the circumstantial evidence was strong. Furthermore, even
assuming that appellant has a potential defense to the charges, which he has not
clearly shown, the other factors cited by the court support detention.

       Finally, the court considered whether any condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably ensure appellant’s appearance, as required under the statute. See
id. § 3142(f). The court did not clearly err in finding that release to a third party would
not reasonably ensure appellant’s appearance, given the court’s findings concerning his
access to substantial financial resources and his ability and willingness to defy the
court. Moreover, although appellant was released on an appearance bond in the prior
case, the court did not clearly err in concluding that his release in the prior case did not
require release here, as discussed above.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                 FOR THE COURT:
                                                 Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                          BY:    /s/
                                                 Daniel J. Reidy
                                                 Deputy Clerk

                                             2