USA v. POWELL et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cr-00173-JRS-MKK
)
ANTHONY MILIAN, JR., 	) 	-02
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
On August 26, 2025, Defendant Anthony Milian, Jr., was charged with one count of
violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon). [Dkt.
1.] 	The Government moved for pretrial detention, and the Court held a Detention Hearing on
September 12, 2025. [Dkt. 37.] Mr. Milian was ordered detained pending trial. [Dkt. 38.] The
Court's Order of Detention states as follows:
For the reasons more fully stated on the record, the Court found that the
Government met its burden to show 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 and by a preponderance of the evidence that
no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the
Defendant's appearance as required. 	The Court also considered positive factors
shown by the Defendant, including ties to the community. 	However, the
Government showed a strong weight of evidence against the Defendant, he has a
significant prior criminal history that includes violence, he has previously violated
release conditions, and he has a prior escape conviction. Due to all of these factors,
and as more fully stated on the record considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C
§ 3142(g), the Court detained the Defendant pretrial.
[Id. at 4.]
On February 27, 2026, Mr. Milian, through counsel, filed a Motion to Modify Conditions
of Release. [Dkt. 48.] In that Motion, Mr. Milian cites 18 U.S.C § 3142(f) and (i), asking that the
Court "reconsider Mr. Milian’s detention order in light of the changed circumstances, more
Case 1:25-cr-00173-JRS-MKK Document 53 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
specifically a surgery scheduled for his five-year-old son, and to release him on conditions to
include home incarceration and supervision by Pretrial Services." [Id. at 1.] The Motion states
that his son's surgery is scheduled for March 11, 2026, and that if the Motion is granted, Mr. Milian
will reside at an address outside of this District in Cookeville, Tennessee. [Id. at 3.] Mr. Milian's
Motion does not set forth a proposed time limit on the release request, so it appears that he is
requesting that he be released on approved conditions until trial.
The Government opposes Mr. Milian's Motion. 	[Dkt. 52.] 	The Government states that
while the "United States sympathizes with Defendant’s desire to be present during what will surely
be a difficult and stressful time . . . that desire is not sufficient to reopen the detention hearing or
justify his temporary release." [Id. at 1.] The Government cites the applicable legal standards and
emphasizes that Mr. Milian bears the burden of proof for demonstrating a sufficient ground for
temporary release under 18 U.S.C § 3142(i). 	[Id. at 1-2.] 	Even if Mr. Milian's son's scheduled
surgery is a recent development, the Government emphasizes that his son's health condition is not
new and does not constitute the changed circumstances necessary for the Court to reopen the
Detention Hearing. [Id. at 3.] The Government also argues that Mr. Milian's request does not meet
the requirements of 18 U.S.C § 3142(i), since Mr. Milian is requesting an extended release, not a
temporary release. [Id. at 3.]
Since Mr. Milian's Motion cites both 18 U.S.C § 3142(f) and 18 U.S.C § 3142(i), the Court
will consider each of those sections in turn. 18 U.S.C § 3142(f) provides that a detention hearing
may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time
before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known
to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue
whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance
of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.
Case 1:25-cr-00173-JRS-MKK Document 53 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
In order for the court to reconsider the detention decision, the defendant "must present evidence
that was not previously available and is relevant to the determination of his risk of flight or danger
to the community." United States v. Romero, 2022 WL 3210486, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2022).
The court does not need to hold an additional hearing if the moving party fails to reach this
threshold showing.1 Id.
Mr. Milian's Motion cites a change in circumstances that his son is now scheduled to have
heart surgery at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital on March 11, 2026. 	[Dkt. 48.] 	Mr. Milian
represents that his son's mother is the only currently available support for his son, and he contends
that his release is needed for the mother's "mental and physical support" as she cares for their son
and another child. [Id.] Mr. Milian cites his strong family support and intent to continue online
education and attend alcoholics anonymous meetings as support for his request. [Id.]
The Court agrees with the Government that the scheduling of Mr. Milian's son's surgery is
not the type of change in circumstances that requires the Court to reopen the Detention Hearing
under 18 U.S.C § 3142(f). While the Court empathizes with Mr. Milian's son, his son's mother,
and Mr. Milian's inability to be present at the upcoming surgery, that is not the type of change in
circumstances that "has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that
will reasonably assure the appearance of [Mr. Milian] as required and the safety of any other person
and the community," as is required by the statute. The other circumstances cited in Mr. Milian's
Motion, such as his family support, were already presented at his Detention Hearing as evidenced
by the Court's Detention Order citing its consideration of "positive factors shown by the Defendant,
1 Mr. Milian's Motion does not ask that the Court schedule a hearing. 	Out of an abundance of
caution, the chambers of the undersigned contacted counsel for Mr. Milian and the Government to
attempt to schedule a hearing, but counsel confirmed it was not necessary for the Court to hold a
hearing. Thus, the Court set a briefing schedule and now rules on the pending Motion based on
the Parties' filings.
Case 1:25-cr-00173-JRS-MKK Document 53 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
including ties to the community." [See dkt. 38 at 4.] Thus, the Court does not find that Mr. Milian's
Motion sets forth a threshold basis for the Court to reopen the Detention Hearing under 18 U.S.C
§ 3142(f), and the Court denies the Motion on that basis.
Turning to 18 U.S.C § 3142(i), that statute provides that after issuing a detention order,
[t]he judicial officer may, by subsequent order, permit the temporary release of the
person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate person, to
the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for
preparation of the person’s defense or for another compelling reason.
Mr. Milian does not appear to be requesting temporary release. Rather, he appears to be requesting
release, home detention, and pretrial supervision in another District pending trial. That type of
extended release is not what is contemplated by 18 U.S.C § 3142(i), and the Court denies it on that
basis alone.
For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Milian's Motion to Modify Conditions of
Release. 	[Dkt. 48.] 	While like the Government the Court also empathizes with Mr. Milian's
inability to be present during his son's surgery, the pending Motion does not present a convincing
basis for the Court to reconsider its prior detention decision. Thus, Mr. Milian remains detained
pretrial pursuant to the Court's previously issued Order of Detention. [Dkt. 38.]
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
Kelsey Massa
DOJ-USAO
kelsey.massa@usdoj.gov
Mitchell Adam Swedarsky
swedarsky.law@gmail.com
Date: 3/9/2026
Case 1:25-cr-00173-JRS-MKK Document 53 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>