USA v. Sheffield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 2:24-cr-20012
RODNEY DEWAYNE SHEFFIELD 	DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ notice of appeal0F
1 (Doc. 15) of the Magistrate Judge’s
Conditions of Release Order, and Defendant Rodney Sheffield’s motion (Doc. 22) to dismiss the
United States’ appeal. 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court will refer this matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions to reopen Mr. Sheffield’s detention hearing, and the United
States’ appeal and Mr. Sheffield’s motion will be FOUND MOOT.
The United States charged Mr. Sheffield in a three-count indictment. 	(Doc. 16). 	Mr.
Sheffield is charged with (1) influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal Official, (2)
receipt of child pornography, and (3) possession of child pornography. 	Id. 	Relevant here, the
receipt charge is under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) while the possession charge is under
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Id. Before indicting Mr. Sheffield, however, the United
States filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Sheffield (Doc. 1). That complaint did not contain
the receipt of child pornography charge. Id.
Mr. Sheffield received a detention hearing related to the complaint before United States
Chief Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford (Doc. 21). During the detention hearing, Judge Ford noted
that neither of the charged offenses fell under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), a provision which creates a
1 The Government styles its request as an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3145. 	However,
technically the Government’s request is “a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the
conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1).
Case 2:24-cr-20012-SOH Document 26 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
rebuttable presumption that detention is appropriate. 	(Doc. 21, pp. 96–97). 	Judge Ford then
ordered that Mr. Sheffield be released pending trial with special conditions. 	(Doc. 12). 	Judge
Ford also granted the United States’ request for a stay of that order so that it could bring this
challenge to the release order. Id.
After the detention hearing, Mr. Sheffield was indicted, which included the additional
receipt of child pornography charge. 	This is relevant because the receipt charge, under section
2252(a)(2), raises the rebuttable presumption that a defendant should be detained before trial. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). At the detention hearing, Mr. Sheffield was not afforded the opportunity
to address the rebuttable presumption because, at that time, the charges did not raise that
presumption.
A detention hearing may be reopened at any time before trial if “information exists that
was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the
[detention] issue. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The new receipt charge was not known at the time of
the hearing. And the new charge raises the rebuttable presumption, which was not addressed at
the hearing but materially changes the standard on the detention issue. Therefore, Judge Ford is
directed to reopen the detention hearing to allow the parties to present evidence and argument
about this issue. 	This course of action also moots United States’ appeal and Mr. Sheffield’s
motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ notice of appeal (Doc. 15) of
Magistrate Judge Conditions of Release Order and Defendant Rodney Sheffield’s motion
(Doc. 22) to dismiss the United States’ appeal are FOUND MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this detention issue is referred to Judge Ford with
directions to reopen the detention hearing to address the new charge and rebuttable presumption.
Case 2:24-cr-20012-SOH Document 26 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Probation Office shall file an amended
pretrial report addressing the new charges before the next detention hearing occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2024.
/s/P. K. Holmes , III
P.K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cr-20012-SOH Document 26 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>