USA v. White et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	:
vs. 	: CRIMINAL NO. 16-00099-WS-N
:
:
MONTAVIUS MILLER, 	:
Defendant.
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Government’s Amended Motion
for 	Detention. 	(Doc. 	12). 	A 	detention 	hearing 	was 	held 	before 	the
undersigned Magistrate Judge on June 27, 2016. Present at the hearing was
the defendant, Montavius Miller, along with his counsel of record Richard
Alexander, Esq., and Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Baugh.
Upon careful review of the Court file, including the pretrial services report,
the evidence presented at the detention hearing and the applicable case law,
the Court, for the reasons that follow, grants the Government’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Montavius Miller, age 22, is charged by way of indictment
with Conspiracy (Count 1), Carjacking (Count 2) and Brandishing a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count 3). 	FBI Special Agent
David 	Kowalski 	testified 	to 	the 	following 	facts 	surrounding 	the 	alleged
offenses, 	some 	of 	which 	the 	officer 	testified 	are 	captured 	on 	video
surveillance:

2
Defendant 	Miller, 	along 	with 	two 	accomplices, 	was 	sitting 	in
defendant’s 	vehicle 	(Silver 	Mazda) 	in 	the 	parking 	lot 	of 	Forest 	Hills
Apartments in Mobile, Alabama. 	As a man walked to his car one of the
accomplices exited defendant’s vehicle with a gun and forced the man into his
(the victim’s) car (Tahoe). 	Defendant’s vehicle then waited for the Tahoe to
pull out of the parking lot and followed the Tahoe out of the lot to an
abandoned house in a remote area. 	Once at the house, the victim speaks to
his wife by phone and negotiations ensue over a ransom for the victim’s safe
return. 	At some point during the conversation a firearm is discharged into
the air. 	The victim is then transported (at some point he is placed in the
trunk of the defendant’s car) to a hotel room and held there against his will.
The driver’s license on file with the hotel belongs to the defendant, Montavius
Miller, and he admitted this fact to the officers. At some point the victim was
again placed in the trunk of defendant’s car that was later found abandoned
in the apartment complex. 	The victim, who was bound by tape, was able to
loosen the binds, release the trunk latch and escape the vehicle and seek help
from a resident in the complex who called 911.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, a defendant
may be detained pending trial only after a hearing, held pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3242(f), and upon a finding that “no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required
and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
A finding that the defendant is either a flight risk or a danger to the
community is sufficient to detain the person pending trial. United States v.
King, 849 F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir. 1988).

3
In making this determination, the Court considers the following §
3142(g) factors: (1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic
drug; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and
characteristics of the person, including -- (A) the person’s character, physical
and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of
residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to
drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at
court proceedings; and (B) whether at the time of the current offense or
arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending
trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under
Federal, State, or local law; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger
to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
In the instant case, based on the nature of the offenses charged, there
is a statutory presumption that the Defendant should be detained. 	Once
invoked, 	the 	defendant 	is 	obliged 	to 	produce 	evidence 	to 	rebut 	that
presumption. United States v. Niles, 874 F. Supp. 1372, 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1994)
(citing United States. v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990)). If
the defendant is successful, “the presumption does not disappear, but rather

4
becomes evidence to be weighed, along with other evidence, as suggesting a
risk of flight or risk of danger.” Id. 1
Danger
The government moves for detention on the grounds that Defendant
poses a danger to the community. Defendant is charged with a crime of
violence. The weight of the evidence against the defendant is strong. Agent
Kowalski testified that there is a videotape showing portions of the
carjacking. Additionally, Defendant has admitted to his involvement.2
Defendant has a prior criminal history consisting of domestic violence arrests
and convictions (3rd Degree Harassment, 3rd Degree Assault).
Defendant’s mental health is also of much concern. Defendant’s
mother, Teresa Roberson3, testified that the he has had multiple inpatient
hospitalizations at Alta Pointe since he was twelve years old. 	She testified
that over the years Defendant has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder, BiPolar Disorder, Depression, Schizophrenia and Defiant Disorder.
Mrs. Roberson noted that as a child Defendant “always ran away” and
1 The Government does not move for detention on the basis of risk of flight.
Defendant has a strong family ties in the community and has held a job for
the past four years.
2 There was no testimony presented that placed the gun in defendant’s actual
possession. Additionally, Agent Kowalski testified that one of the
accomplices stated that at some point during the evening defendant
expressed a desire to end his participation in the offenses.
3 Mrs. Roberson testified that she is a Registered Nurse currently working at
Providence Hospital in Mobile, Alabama.

5
developed friendships with “the wrong people.” She further testified that the
Defendant tried to hang himself at 13, has overdosed on his medications 4and
cut himself (she recalls in 2013 or 2014). Mrs. Roberson noted that when
Defendant is in inpatient settings he is compliant with his medications but
often fails to comply with the medication regimen upon release.
The evidence presented at the hearing reflects that the Defendant is
currently employed with the Mobile Civic Center. 	Mrs. Roberson testified
that Defendant had been employed with the Civic Center for approximately
four years and that his employer had advised he could return to his job if
released from custody. 	Defendant has been living with his grandmother and
great aunt since approximately 2013.5 	However, both women testified that
defendant often stays with his girlfriend. Mary Agee, Defendant’s great aunt,
testified that she was surprised to learn that he was incarcerated for 90 days
in March 2015 and just assumed he was living with his girlfriend. 	She also
testified she was unaware of Defendant’s mental health issues. Shirley Ann
Allen, Defendant’s grandmother, testified that Defendant had been living
with her and her sister for approximately seven months. 	Mrs. Allen works
full time at rehabilitation facility in North Mobile County.
4 Mrs. Roberson testified that over the last ten years Defendant has been
prescribed Depakote (antipsychotic, mood stabilizer), Remeron
(antidepressant) and Risperdal (antipsychotic/bipolar disorder)
5 	Defendant’s mother testified that she is remarried and her new husband
and defendant did not really get along well. However, she testified there
were no physical altercations.

6
For the reasons set forth above, including the nature of the charges,
and Defendant’s unresolved mental health issues, the undersigned finds that
Defendant 	has 	not 	rebutted 	the 	presumption 	of 	detention 	in 	this 	case.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds by clear and convincing evidence that
there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably
assure the safety of the community. 	Thus, the Government’s Amended
Motion to Detain (doc. 12) is granted.
Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his
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. Defendant shall 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 shall deliver the Defendant to the
United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a
court proceeding.
DONE this the 28th day of June 2016.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE