USA v. Cole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:20-cr-00014-SRC-1
)
NATHAN COLE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Memorandum and Order
Before the Court is Nathan Cole’s Motion for Emergency Administrative Stay and Stay
Pending Appeal. Doc. 94. In his motion, Cole sets forth a list of alleged injuries he will sustain
if he is transferred to the BOP. See id. at 7 (The Court cites to page numbers as assigned by
CM/ECF.). Among other things, Cole alleges that transfer to the BOP will create a “barrier on
his ability to prepare a defense in a meaningful way.” Id. Cole argues that “a stay pending
appeal does not necessarily imply release rather it simply prevents [him] from transferring to
BOP custody,” but notes that he “ultimately desires release pending appeal . . . and remaining on
supervised release pending the outcome of [the] criminal proceeding.” Id. at 8. The United
States opposes Cole’s motion. Doc. 96.
I. 	Background
In January 2020, a federal grand jury indicted Cole on one count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Docs. 1–2. After his arrest,
U.S. Pretrial Services prepared a Bail Report. See doc. 13. The Bail Report revealed that Cole
has several felony convictions for 1st degree burglary, attempted 2nd degree burglary (2
convictions), 2nd degree burglary (2 convictions), theft/sealing (2 convictions), possession of
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
burglary tools, and resisting/interfering with arrest for a felony. Id. at 3–4. At that time, U.S.
Pretrial Services advised that Cole posed a risk of nonappearance for the following reasons:
1. 	[Cole’s] conduct prior to and during arrest for instant federal offense.
2. 	Criminal history including record of evading supervision from the Missouri
Board of Probation and Parole.
3. 	Current untreated mental health condition.
4. 	Criminal history including record of Failure to Appear.
5. 	Criminal activity while under supervision.
6. 	Lack of verifiable and/or legitimate employment.
7. 	Pending charges and [Cole] ordered detained in Case No.:
1922-CR03658.
8. 	Probation and/or parole and a history of non-compliance.
Id. at 6. 	U.S. Pretrial Services also advised that Cole posed a risk of danger for the following
reasons:
1. 	Nature of instant offense, as it relates to the proliferation of illegal
possession of firearms.
2. 	[Cole’s] prior arrests for crimes of violence.
3. 	Substance abuse history and addiction, as a precursor to the commission of
crimes.
4. 	Current charge involving gun violence.
5. 	Criminal activity while under supervision.
6. 	Case No.: 1922-CR03658 involving domestic violence.
7. 	Case No.: 1922-CR03658 involving injury of an identifiable victim.
8. 	Convictions for violent behavior.
Id. Cole ultimately waived his detention hearing and Judge Collins ordered him detained
pending trial. Doc. 14.
In December 2020, Cole pleaded guilty to the one-count indictment. Doc. 40. 	Cole
entered into a guilty-plea agreement with the United States, admitting the following facts:
Shooting on November 17, 2019
On or about November 17, 2019, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers
were dispatched to 3420 Chippewa Street, in St. Louis, Missouri, within the Eastern
District of Missouri, regarding a shooting. Specifically, a caller stated that a man,
later identified as Defendant Nathan Cole, exited a blue car and was shooting at a
female. 	Officers then arrived at the scene and saw a blue Subaru matching the
caller’s description of the vehicle that the shooter had exited. 	When officers
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
attempted to stop the blue Subaru, [Cole], who was driving the vehicle, sped away
from the scene. 	Officers then pursued [Cole], but he drove recklessly—ignoring
stop signs and forcing other vehicles to swerve to avoid a collision. [Cole] even
sped through the area surrounding an elementary school, which had just dismissed
students for the day. Nonetheless, [Cole] continued driving recklessly. The officers
eventually lost sight of the Subaru that day.
Meanwhile, officers subsequently spoke to witnesses of the shooting, who
confirmed, among other matters, that a man, later identified as [Cole], did the
following: (1) shot at a female victim several times; (2) put a gun to the victim’s
head; (3) forced the victim into a blue car (i.e. the Subaru) at gunpoint, (4) and sped
off in vehicle with the victim, when police arrived at the scene.
Notably, the blue Subaru was later determined to be stolen, with license plates
stolen from yet another vehicle. Officers also obtained surveillance footage from a
service station indicating that (a couple hours after the shooting) [Cole] drove the
Subaru to a service station, where he engaged in a hand-to-hand narcotics
transaction.
Apprehension on November 18, 2019
The following morning after the shooting, on November 18, 2019, officers located
the blue Subaru at the intersection at Natural Bridge Boulevard and Goodfellow
Boulevard in St. Louis, Missouri. [Cole] was driving the vehicle. [Cole] still had
the shooting victim with him. 	When officers attempted to pull over the vehicle,
[Cole] again fled from officers. 	In doing so, [Cole] swerved in front of a school
bus, causing it to slam on its brakes to avoid a collision. [Cole] then continued to
drive recklessly—speeding, making U-turns, fishtailing, and causing other vehicles
to swerve out of the way to avoid a collision. Eventually, [Cole] lost control of the
Subaru, colliding with a concrete barrier in a median on Goodfellow Boulevard,
within the Eastern District of Missouri.
[Cole] opened the driver’s side door of the Subaru. He failed to comply with orders
to show his hands. However, [Cole] eventually exited the vehicle. As he did so,
officers saw the butt end of a firearm in the driver’s seat, underneath [Cole’s]
thighs. [Cole] was then taken into custody. He had the keys for the Subaru in his
pocket.
The shooting victim was on the passenger side of the vehicle. Her face was covered
in blood.
Officers seized [Cole’s] firearm from the vehicle, a Rock Island .45 caliber
semiautomatic pistol. The pistol had eight rounds in the magazine and a round in
the chamber. Law enforcement officers subsequently discovered that the gun had
been reported stolen.
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
After being read his Miranda rights, [Cole] was interviewed by police officers. He
also gave a written statement. [Cole] specifically admitted to owning the .45 caliber
semi-automatic pistol and shooting it, on or about, November 17, 2019. 	[Cole]
initially stated that he had not fired shots that evening. He then stated he had “test-
fired” the pistol that night. 	However, he ultimately admitted to arguing with the
victim and “shooting into the air”' in the victim’s presence. [Cole] further admitted
to fleeing from police officers “'because of my P.O.”' i.e. parole officer.
[Cole] specifically admits that he knowingly possessed the pistol described above
on or about November 17 and 18, 2019.
Id. at 3–5. In March 2021, United States District Judge Ronnie L. White, now retired, sentenced
Cole to 48 months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. Doc. 53 at 2–3.
Cole’s supervision commenced on November 15, 2024. Doc. 62 at 1. Less than six
months later, U.S. Probation informed the Court that Cole had “tested positive for the use of
fentanyl and marijuana, failed to attend treatment as required, failed to report to drug testing as
required, failed to obtain full time employment, and has engaged in criminal activity.” Id. at 4.
The criminal activity took place on March 26, 2025, when the St. Louis County, Missouri Police
Department arrested Cole for felony aggravated fleeing. Id. at 1–2. As a result, the Court issued
a warrant for Cole’s arrest. See id. at 5.
After his arrest in September 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins held
a detention hearing. Doc. 65. This time, Cole argued for release. See id. Nevertheless, Judge
Collins found “[b]y 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”
and “[b]y a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release
will reasonably assure [Cole’s] appearance as required.” Doc. 73 at 3. Judge Collins cited the
following reasons for detention: (1) “[w]eight of evidence against [Cole] is strong,” (2) “[l]ack
of stable employment,” (3) “[h]istory of alcohol or substance abuse,” (4) “[p]rior criminal
history,” (5) “[o]n probation, parole, and/or release pending trial, sentence appeal, or completion
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
of the sentence at the time of the alleged offense,” (6) “[p]articipation in criminal activity while
on probation, parole, or supervision,” and (7) “[Cole’s] release poses serious danger to any
person or the community.” Id. Judge Collins further explained:
On September 19, 2025, [Cole] made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right
to a preliminary hearing. 	[Judge Collins] found probable cause to believe the
defendant violated the conditions of supervised release previously imposed in this
cause. Based on the record made at the detention hearing, the Court finds that it is
unlikely that the defendant would abide by similar conditions if admitted to bail at
this time and that he should be detained.
Id. at 4. Cole did not appeal Judge Collins’s order.
At the final-supervised-release-revocation hearing, Cole admitted guilt to the Grade C
violations but contested the Grade B violation. Doc. 78; see also doc. 80 at 1. Following Officer
Kranz’s testimony, the Court found Cole guilty of the Grade B violation. See doc. 79; doc. 80 at
1. As a result of Cole’s violations, the Court revoked his supervision and sentenced him to 24
months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ supervised release. Doc. 80 at 3–4. Cole appealed the
Court’s Judgment, doc. 89, and then filed his Motion for Emergency Administrative Stay and
Stay Pending Appeal, doc. 94.
II. 	Standard
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 38(b) governs stays of imprisonment:
(1) Stay Granted. If the defendant is released pending appeal, the court must stay a
sentence of imprisonment.
(2) Stay Denied; Place of Confinement. If the defendant is not released pending
appeal, the court may recommend to the Attorney General that the defendant be
confined near the place of the trial or appeal for a period reasonably necessary to
permit the defendant to assist in preparing the appeal.
Relatedly, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) governs release or detention pending appeal by the Defendant:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person
who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment,
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless
the judicial officer finds—
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or
pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released
under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial
question of law or fact likely to result in—
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total
of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal
process.
A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to release pending appeal.
United States v. Powell, 761 F.2d 1227, 1232 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc). In discussing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(b)(1), the Eighth Circuit has explained that the “Bail Reform Act of 1984 made it much
more difficult for a convicted criminal defendant to obtain his release pending appeal. The Act’s
intent ‘was, bluntly, that fewer convicted persons remain at large while pursuing their appeals.’”
United States v. Marshall, 78 F.3d 365, 366 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Powell, 761
F.2d at 1231).
III. 	Discussion
To release Cole pending appeal, the Court must “find (A) by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to others, and (B) that his appeal
‘raises a substantial question of law or fact’ that is likely to result in reversal, new trial, or
reduction to a sentence that would be served before disposition of the appeal.” Marshall, 78
F.3d at 366 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(A)–(B)).
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Cole makes no attempt to argue that he is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to others. See
doc. 94. And the United States argues that Cole cannot overcome 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)’s
presumption of detention because he is likely to flee or poses a danger to the safety of any other
person or the community. Doc. 96 at 5.
For the reasons set forth in Judge Collins’s Order of Detention, doc. 73, the Court cannot
find by clear and convincing evidence that Cole is not likely to flee or to pose a danger to the
safety of any other person or the community if released. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(A).
Therefore, the Court denies Cole’s Motion for Emergency Administrative Stay and Stay Pending
Appeal. Because Cole fails to satisfy the statute’s first requirement, the Court need not address
the statute’s second requirement.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court denies Cole’s [94] Motion for Emergency Administrative Stay
and Stay Pending Appeal.
Dated this 13th day of November 2025.
STEPHEN R. CLARK
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:20-cr-00014-SRC Doc. #: 99 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>