USA v. Harris

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cr-97-CJW
VS.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TYRONE TERRELL HARRIS,
RE: DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant.

I. Background

On January 6, 2026, Defendant appeared for an initial appearance before the Honorable Jeffrey
T. Gilbert, United States Magistrate Judge of the Northern District of Illinois. Gov. Ex. 1. Defendant
was released on conditions. (Doc. 19 at 4.) The Government requested a stay of Defendant’s release.
The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge of the Northern District of Iowa, granted the stay and
ordered, “Upon [Defendant’s] initial appearance in Iowa, the Court will schedule a detention hearing
at which time both parties may present evidence about whether defendant poses a risk of flight or
nonappearance, or otherwise should be released pending trial in this matter.” (Doc. 6 at 4.)

The transcript of the hearing before Judge Gilbert shows he determined that “on the facts here
what I find is that the government has not met its burden under 3142(f)(2)(A) 4 to show that Mr. Harris
presents a serious risk of flight.” (Ex. 1 at 35.) While Chief Judge Williams apparently did not have
the benefit of this transcript at the time he ordered Defendant’s release stayed, I believe his order can
fairly be read as overruling the determination that the Government had not established its right to a
hearing. I also conclude that the Government’s request to detain Defendant should be considered a
motion for revocation of an order releasing Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3145.

Because Defendant was released by a Magistrate Judge in the district where he made his first

appearance, I must first address the proper procedure under 18 United States Code Section 3145(a)(1).

INFORMATION

I conclude that it is not my roll to directly review the release order of a fellow Magistrate Judge from
another district under the statute. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue as follows:

The text of § 3145(a) supports the conclusion that a motion to revoke a magistrate judge’s
release order should be ruled on directly by a district judge. We agree with the reasoning
of a district court from another circuit that explained:

It is clear from the wording of Section 3145(a) that “a court having original
jurisdiction over the offense” must be interpreted as the district judge assigned
to the case ... [T]hat section suggests a hierarchy for reviewing a magistrate’s
decision. In other words, Section 3145(a) authorizes a district judge to review
a decision made by a magistrate judge, but it does not confer the same
authority upon a magistrate judge in the charging district when the challenged
order was issued by a magistrate judge in the arresting district.

United States v. Johnson, 858 F.Supp. 119, 122 (N.D.Ind.1994). The hierarchy
suggested by § 3145(a) is consistent with the ultimate decision-making power and
continuing jurisdiction over the actions of magistrate judges that district court judges
possess. See United States v. First Nat’l Bank of Rush Springs, 576 F.2d 852, 853 (10th
Cir.1978) (per curiam); United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1486 (8th Cir.1985) (en
banc) (stating, in the context of decision-making under § 3145(a) and (b), that “‘the
magistrate acts subsidiary to and only in aid of the district court,’ and that ‘the entire
process takes place under the district court’s total control and jurisdiction.’ ”) (quoting
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980))

United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 615-16 (10th Cir. 2003). This is not to say, however, that
a Magistrate Judge cannot hold a hearing and proceed by Report and Recommendation when this

situation arises. Several courts have concluded that Magistrate Judges should proceed by Report and

Recommendation under these circumstances. For example, in the Southern District of Georgia, United

States v. Wilson recently explained,

“Although the statute is not explicit, and there is surprisingly little case law on this subject
(in light of the number of detention hearings held nationwide every year), it is generally
assumed that the review under § 3145(a)(1) will be conducted by a district judge.” United
States v. Ross, 2007 WL 1295995, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2007). Ross further noted
that “there appears to be absolutely no reason why the district judge ... cannot initially
refer the review to a magistrate judge ... on a report and recommendation basis. The
statute does not prohibit it, and addressing the issue of detention is hardly foreign territory
to a magistrate judge since it is one of a magistrate judge’s core responsibilities.

2

Case 1:25-cr-00097-CJW-MAR Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2of5

Moreover, a report and recommendation provides the district judge with the same

opportunity to conduct a de novo review that would occur if the district judge handled

the review personally in the first instance.” Jd. at *2. Thus, as in Ross, the Court

concludes that, in this case, “the appropriate way to proceed [is] to render a report and

recommendation to the district judge, which will allow a de novo review of the detention

issue ....” Id.
No. CR424-102, 2025 WL 586835, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2025), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 4:24-CR-102, 2025 WL 588997 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2025).

As in Ross and Wilson, I conclude it is appropriate for me to render this report and
recommendation. 18 U.S.C.§ 3142(b).

II. Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

After considering any applicable presumption, the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s
alleged conduct, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g), the information presented at the detention hearing, and the available conditions of release

under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), I recommend that the defendant must be detained pending trial because

the Government has proven
[_] By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure

the safety of any other person and the community.

[7 By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure
the defendant’s appearance as required.

The reasons for detention include the following checked items (After this list, add any additional items or explanations as
needed to comply with the requirement for a written statement of reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i).):

LJ

The offense charged is a crime of violence, a violation of § 1591, a federal crime of terrorism, or involves
a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device.
Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong.
Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted.

Lack of significant family or other ties to the community.

Significant family or other ties outside the United States.

Lack of legal status in the United States.

Subject to removal or deportation after serving any period of incarceration.

Lack of stable residence.

Lack of stable employment.

Lack of financially responsible sureties.

ONOOOOORN

Case 1:25-cr-00097-CJW-MAR Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3of5

[4 Prior attempt(s) to evade law enforcement.

L¥ Use of alias(es) or false documents.

(] History of alcohol or substance abuse.

[4 Prior criminal history.

_] History of violence or use of weapons.

L] Prior violations of probation, parole, or supervised release.

LF Prior failure to appear in court as ordered.

L] On probation, parole, and/or release pending trial, sentence appeal, or completion of the sentence at the time
of the alleged offense.

_] Participation in criminal activity while on probation, parole, or supervision.

L_] The defendant’s release poses serious danger to any person or the community.

OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION:

As stated on the record.

III. Directions Regarding Detention

I order Defendant be detained by the U.S. Marshall Service until the Court’s ruling on this
Report and Recommendation.

IV. Conclusion

I recommend the defendant be remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the
Attorney General’s designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the
extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
The defendant must 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 must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the
purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

Objections to this Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)
and Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b) must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of a copy of this
Report and Recommendation. Objections must specify the parts of the Report and Recommendation
to which objections are made, as well as the parts of the record forming the basis for the objections.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. Failure to object to the Report and Recommendation waives the right to de

novo review by the district court of any portion of the Report and Recommendation as well as the right
4

Case 1:25-cr-00097-CJW-MAR Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page4of5

to appeal from the findings of fact contained therein. United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5
(8th Cir. 2009).
DONE AND ENTERED at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, this 23rd day of January, 2026.

Mark A. Roberts, oe States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of lowa

Case 1:25-cr-00097-CJW-MAR Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page5of5