USA v. Elayyan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cr-342-MAL-RHH (SRW)
EMAD ELAYYAN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Emad Elayyan is charged with conducting violent armed robberies throughout
several states in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Doc. 1. Upon the government’s motion and after a hearing,
see Doc. 4 (motion) and 27 (hearing transcript), the presiding magistrate judge1 issued
an Order of Detention Pending Trial. 	Doc. 22. 	Elayyan now moves to revoke the
Order of Detention, seeking review of the magistrate judge’s order under 18 U.S.C. §
3145(b).2 	Doc. 34. 	Based on the record before the Court, Elayyan’s motion will be
denied.
Standard and Scope of Review
This Court reviews a magistrate judge’s detention order de novo. 	See United
States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc).
A defendant may be detained before trial “if the government shows by clear
and convincing evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will reasonably
assure the safety of the community and by a preponderance of the evidence that no
condition 	or 	set 	of 	conditions 	… 	will 	reasonably 	assure 	the 	defendant’s
appearance[.]” 	United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing 18
1 United States Magistrate Judge Stephen R. Welby.
2 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), “If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, .
. . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a
motion for revocation or amendment of the order. The motion shall be determined
promptly.”
Case: 4:25-cr-00342-MAL-RHH Doc. #: 37 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

U.S.C. § 3142(c), (e)–(f)) (emphasis and ellipses in original). 	To determine whether
such conditions exist, the Court considers: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the
crime; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and
characteristics of the defendant, including mental condition, family ties, employment,
community ties, and past conduct; and (4) the seriousness of the danger to the
community or to an individual.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)).
Because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an
offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), see Doc. 1, there is a statutory presumption that no
condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant
as required and the safety of the community. 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). 	The
defendant bears a burden of production to rebut this presumption by presenting
evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 	See
Abad, 350 F.3d at 797. 	Even if that burden is met, “the presumption favoring
detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among
those weighed by the [Court].” Id.
Analysis
Defendant 	Elayyan 	failed 	to 	rebut 	the 	statutory 	presumption 	favoring
detention. 	Doc. 22 at 2. 	Considering that presumption, the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g), the information presented at the detention hearing, the information
provided in the Pretrial Services Report (Doc. 20), and the available conditions of
release under 18 U.S.C. 3142(c); the magistrate judge found that no condition or set
of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of other persons and the community,
nor reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance as required. Doc. 22 at 3, 4.
Adopting the facts set forth in the Pretrial Services Report, see Doc. 22 at 3–4,
the magistrate judge highlighted the violent nature of the crimes charged; the weight
of the evidence against Elayyan; the lengthy sentence to be imposed in the event of a
conviction; Elayyan’s lack of significant family or other ties to the community;
Elayyan’s significant family ties outside the United States, and the serious danger
Elayyan’s release poses to others or the community. Doc. 22 at 3. In particular, the
magistrate 	judge 	noted 	that 	Elayyan 	is 	accused 	of 	committing 	violent 	armed
Case: 4:25-cr-00342-MAL-RHH Doc. #: 37 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

robberies in multiple states. Id. at 4. During one of those robberies, a customer was
allegedly used as a human shield. Id. And although Elayyan has ties to Chicago, his
extended family lives in Jordan where his co-defendants allegedly fled to after
Elayyan was arrested. Id.
The Court has carefully considered the evidentiary record and arguments of
counsel. After conducting a review of the entire record de novo, the Court finds that
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, and by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition
or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure Elayyan’s appearance
as required. The Court also finds that the magistrate judge properly considered and
weighed all factors, both for and against Elayyan’s detention, including: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the offenses charged; (2) the weight of the evidence
against Elayyan; (3) Elayyan’s history and characteristics; and (4) the nature and
seriousness of the danger to the community or an individual that would be posed by
Elayyan’s release. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Elayyan’s Motion for Review
and Revocation of Order of Detention and Request for Immediate Release with
Appropriate Conditions (Doc. 34) is DENIED. The magistrate judge’s Order of
Detention Pending Trial (Doc. 22) is REAFFIRMED and ADOPTED.3
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
___________________________________
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 If after review of the same record and factual findings, the district court agrees fully
with a magistrate judge’s order and reasons, it may adopt the order. United States v.
Cook, 87 F.4th 920, 924–25 (8th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). Adopting a magistrate
judge’s decision “ ‘obviate[s] the need for the district court to prepare its own written
findings of fact and statement of reasons.’ ” 	Id. (quoting United States v. King, 849
F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir. 1988)).
Case: 4:25-cr-00342-MAL-RHH Doc. #: 37 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>