USA v. Berry

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:24-cr-50060-TLB Document 23 Filed 01/07/25 Page1of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:24-CR-50060
GREGORY SHAWN BERRY . DEFENDANT
ORDER

Now before the Court is Defendant Gregory Berry’s Motion to Revoke Detention
Order (Doc. 14). On November 13, 2024, an indictment was filed accusing Mr. Berry of
willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms while not being a licensed firearms
dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), and 924(a)(1)(D). (Doc. 1). Mr.
Berry was arrested November 15, 2024 and appeared for arraignment before United
States Magistrate Judge Christy Comstock November 18, 2024. Mr. Berry was detained
pending a detention hearing, which occurred November 20, 2024. Judge Comstock took
the matter under advisement and issued an Order of Detention (Doc. 13) the next day,
November 21, 2024. Mr. Berry now appeals Judge Comstock’s decision and requests a
hearing on the matter. |

The Court reviews the detention order de novo. The Court has considered all
applicable documents filed of record and carefully studied the official transcript of the
November 20 detention hearing, including the testimony of Special Agent Tyler Cowart
and Mr. Berry's friend and former employer Glen Poore, and the arguments of counsel.
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that a hearing is not necessary because the record
is sufficiently detailed to allow the Court to evaluate Judge Comstock’s detention decision.

See United States v. Barber, 2013 WL 3580195, at *1 (W.D. Ark. July 12, 2013) (citing

Case 5:24-cr-50060-TLB Document 23 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1484 (8th Cir. 1985)) (“Although the review [of a
magistrate judge’s detention order] is de novo, and the Court has the power to hold an
additional hearing if necessary and desirable, the Court may also simply review the
evidence that was before the Magistrate and make an independent determination of
whether the Magistrate's findings are correct.”).

Detention is appropriate where “the government shows by clear and convincing
evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the safety
of the community.” United States v. Kisling, 334 F.3d 734, 735 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting
United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 & n.20 (8th Cir.1985) (en banc)). On its de novo
review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Comstock’s conclusion that the
government has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no set of release
conditions can reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community if Mr.
Berry is released before trial. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Detention Order
(Doc. 13) is AFFIRMED and the Defendant's Motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

a
IT IS SO ORDERED on this T day of January, 2Q25.

RigATY ENERO S
ED STATESISTRICT JUDGE