USA v. Nunez et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-CR-107
)
EDUARDO GONZALEZ SILVA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant was arrested on the charges at issue in this matter in the Middle District of
Tennessee and had an initial appearance in that district. United States v. Silva, Case No. 3:25-MJ-
0440 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2025). United States Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern then held a
detention hearing for Defendant in that district on October 29, 2025, and ordered that Defendant
be released on conditions. Id. Thereafter, the United States moved for a stay of Defendant’s release
pending an appeal to the Eastern District of Tennessee. [Doc. 25, p. 8]. Magistrate Judge Newbern
granted a temporary stay to permit the United States to file a Motion for Stay and Review of
Release Order in this district. [Doc. 9]. The District Court stayed the release order and referred the
United States’ Motion seeking a revocation of the release order to the undersigned for a report and
recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). [Doc. 10]. Defendant then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 23] asking the District Court to reconsider both its stay of the release order
and its referral of the Motion for Review to the undersigned for report and recommendation. The
Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and the District Court confirmed that the referral order
remained in full force and effect. [Doc. 40].
The undersigned held a hearing on the United States’ Motion on November 24, 2025.
Appearing before the Court were Assistant United States Attorney J. Gregory Bowman on behalf
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

of the Government, Defendant’s counsel, Assistant Federal Defender LaRae Ganger, and
Defendant. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court RECOMMENDS that the United States’
Motion [Doc. 9] be GRANTED and that Defendant be detained pending trial in this matter.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Indictment in this case charges Defendant and two co-defendants with one count of
conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine under 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). [Doc. 7].1 Defendant was arrested on October 22, 2025, at his residence in
Lavergne, Tennessee, and at the time of the arrest, officers found two loaded pistols in Defendant’s
bedroom. During Defendant’s initial appearance in the Middle District of Tennessee, the United
States asked the court to detain Defendant pretrial based on his alleged conduct in this case and his
possession of firearms at the time of arrest. However, following the detention hearing in the Middle
District of Tennessee, Judge Newbern determined that conditions of release could be imposed
which would reasonably assure the safety of the community and Defendant’s appearance for future
proceedings. [Doc. 25, p. 3-5]. The conditions of release placed Defendant in the third-party
custody of his girlfriend, Kimberline Barradas, restricted his travel to the Middle and Eastern
Districts of Tennessee unless otherwise approved in advance by the United States Probation Office,
and prohibited Defendant from having any contact with his co-defendants except in the presence
of legal counsel, in addition to certain other requirements. Id. As noted above, at the Government’s
request, Judge Newbern temporarily stayed her ruling, and during that time the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee filed the pending Motion for Stay and
Review of Release Order from the Middle District of Tennessee. [Doc. 9], and the stay was
granted.
1 The indictment charges that this conspiracy also involved other persons both known and unknown to the grand jury.
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

As grounds for its request for review, the United States first notes that Count One of the
Indictment is subject to a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of the
community. [Doc. 9, p. 1]. Additionally, the United States asserts that, through investigation,
Defendant 	was 	identified 	as 	a 	source 	of 	supply 	for 	the 	trafficking 	and 	distribution 	of
methamphetamine within the Tennessee Department of Correction’s Northeast Correctional
Complex (“Northeast Correctional”) that is located within this district. Id. at p. 2. Packages were
intercepted at Northeast Correctional that contained paper soaked in liquid methamphetamine,
some of which also tested presumptively positive for fentanyl and heroin. Id. Defendant was
interviewed by law enforcement on March 9, 2025, and admitted to sending drug packages to
Northeast Correctional and delivering bulk currency for the same drug trafficking operation. Id.
Defendant also consented to the search of his cell phone, which contained numerous photos of
bulk currency, paper suspected to be soaked in methamphetamine, multiple firearms, and money
orders for payment to individuals with addresses in Mexico. The cell phone also contained a video
that depicted Defendant scooping suspected crystal methamphetamine out of a large bag and
measuring it. Id. The Government further advised that firearms were present in Defendant’s
bedroom when he was arrested on October 22, 2025. Id.
In sum, the United States argues that there is no condition or combination of conditions
which would reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance and/or the safety of the community based
on Defendant’s conduct and role in the offense, his continued criminal activity after being
confronted by law enforcement, and the weight of the evidence against him. Id. at p. 2-3.
Defendant did not file a written response to the United States’ Motion for Review of Release
Order. Instead, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 23] wherein he argued that the
District Court should lift the stay of Judge Newbern’s release order, vacate the referral of the issue
of reconsideration of release to the undersigned for report and recommendation and, ultimately,
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

deny the Government’s request to revoke Defendant’s pretrial release. While this motion provided
multiple procedural arguments for the relief requested, it did not argue how or why the conditions
of release imposed by Judge Newbern were sufficient to assure Defendant’s appearance and/or the
safety of the community. As previously stated, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 23]
was denied [Doc. 40] and review of Judge Newbern’s release order commenced before the
undersigned on November 24, 2025.
II. 	SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT OFFERED AT THE
NOVEMBER 24, 2025, HEARING
The United States provided testimony from Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)
Special Agent Cullen Connerly (“Agent Connerly”) who participated in the investigation into
Defendant in conjunction with the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Agent
Connerly’s testimony verified the United States’ assertions that packages were intercepted at
Northeast Correctional that contained paper soaked in liquid methamphetamine. After these
packages were intercepted, investigators went to Defendant’s residence in March 2025 to interview
him. During that interview, Defendant admitted to sending drug packages to Northeast Correctional
and to delivering bulk currency to unnamed individuals on multiple occasions. Agent Connerly’s
testimony also confirmed that Defendant consented to the search of his cell phone which was found
to contain numerous photos of bulk currency, methamphetamine-soaked currency, firearms, and
receipts for money orders sent to Mexico. Agent Connerly stated that although Defendant was
initially cooperative with law enforcement, he later stopped communicating with them and multiple
attempts to contact Defendant were unsuccessful. The agent further testified that a drive-by shooting
occurred at Defendant’s residence in October 2025 during which a vehicle located at Defendant’s
home was shot multiple times.
Agent Connerly further advised that the Lavergne Police Department executed a search
warrant on Defendant’s residence when Defendant was arrested. During the search, officers located
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

two loaded firearms in Defendant’s bedroom along with a spent shell casing, but no drugs were
found with the exception of a THC vape pen.2 Agent Connerly stated that a Nissan Altima was also
searched in conjunction with the search of Defendant’s residence, and was found to contain spent
shell casings, pistol magazines, bullets, and money order receipts. Police also seized Defendant’s
cell phone when Defendant was arrested. Defendant provided law enforcement with the access code
to the phone and officers searched the phone. During the search, officers discovered recent
communications between Defendant and an individual known as “Ceasar” who is believed to have
ties to a drug cartel based in Mexico. The phone also contained the receipt for a pallet of contraband
that was shipped to Northeast Correctional by Defendant’s co-defendant in this matter, Eric Cobb. 3
Agent Connerly stated that Defendant’s girlfriend, Kimberline Barradas, was present at the
time of the search of the residence and Defendant’s arrest and agreed to speak to law enforcement.
One of the photos of bulk currency on Defendant’s phone also depicted a female, and Ms. Barradas
confirmed she was the person in the photo and that the bulk currency was to be delivered to an
unknown individual. Ms. Barradas advised that the currency in the photo totaled $80,000. Agent
Connerly testified that it is his belief that the bulk currency was proceeds from illegal drug sales
that had been given to Defendant which Defendant was to then deliver to another unknown
individual. Ms. Barradas also told officers she had been at Ceasar’s residence the night before and
saw large amounts of methamphetamine. She further advised officers that Defendant was involved
in drug transactions with Ceasar. Both Ms. Barradas and Defendant advised law enforcement that
they had received packaging materials for sending contraband at their residence.
2 Defendant does not have a felony conviction that would prohibit him from owning a firearm. However, Agent
Connerly testified that it is a federal offense to possess a firearm while trafficking illegal drugs. Additionally, Agent
Connerly stated he would need to review the search inventory to be sure that a THC vape pen was discovered but that
was his recollection.
3 The United States also proffered that the pallet of contraband contained 5 pounds of paper that tested presumptively
positive for methamphetamine, cell phones, tobacco, and other contraband.
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

The United States also proffered that after his March 2025 meeting with investigators,
Defendant knew he was under investigation but continued to engage in drug trafficking activity.
The Government further asserted that it is likely that the drive-by shooting at Defendant’s residence
was related to drug trafficking and for that reason, Defendant’s presence in the community poses a
danger as another drive-by shooting or other violence could reasonably be expected to occur if
Defendant was released, even if he resided in a different location as was required by Judge Newbern.
The United States also argued that the presence of pistol magazines and ammunition in Defendant’s
vehicle indicate that Defendant has carried a firearm while out in the community and that the
presence of spent shell casings indicate that Defendant has also used a firearm. Finally, for reasons
further addressed below, the United States asserted that despite the findings by Judge Newbern, Ms.
Barradas was not a suitable third-party custodian.
In response, Defendant proceeded by proffer, noting that Ms. Barradas could not be present
to testify before this Court because she had started a new job and could not miss work. Defense
counsel stated that Ms. Barradas’ ability to maintain employment was particularly important
because of her need to support the 2-year-old son that she shares with Defendant. Defense counsel
further stated that Ms. Barradas stands by her previous testimony and continues to be willing to
serve as Defendant’s third-party custodian. Additionally, Defendant asserted that Ms. Barradas’
decision to be present on the first day of her new job demonstrates her maturity and supports the
contention that she is a responsible third-party custodian. Defense counsel noted that Judge
Newbern found Ms. Barradas’ testimony to be credible and determined that she would be an
appropriate third-party custodian. Ms. Barradas currently resides with Defendant’s parents, which
is where the drive-by shooting occurred, but Ms. Barradas previously testified she and Defendant
could live with her parents, or she and Defendant could find a residence of their own to mitigate the
risk of retaliation or further violence. Defendant’s counsel stated that Judge Newbern heard the
same allegations that were presented to this Court and found that conditions could be imposed that
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

would reasonably assure the safety of the community and Defendant’s presence. Additionally,
Defendant’s counsel stated that if the Court has concerns about Ms. Barradas serving as third-party
custodian, Defendant’s parents are willing to allow Defendant to continue residing in their home
and that Defendant is willing to comply with any conditions imposed.
Defense counsel argued that Defendant’s stable social status was sufficient to rebut the
presumption in favor of detention. Specifically, counsel noted that Defendant is a United States
citizen, has no criminal history, and, until his arrest, was employed. Defendant’s counsel also argued
that Defendant has strong ties to his community and his family has expressed willingness to ensure
that he appears as necessary for court and maintains contact with probation as well. Defendant
further argued that the drive-by shooting was in retaliation for Defendant’s initial cooperation with
law enforcement which is why he was hesitant to cooperate further.4 Defense counsel pointed out
that Defendant did ultimately decide to once again cooperate with law enforcement at the time of
his recent arrest, providing officers with the passcode to search his phone, and that this renewed
cooperation should weigh in favor of the Court finding that Defendant is not a flight risk.
Additionally, Defendant’s counsel argued that the crime with which Defendant is charged, while
serious, is not a violent offense and there is no allegation that weapons were used in conjunction
with mailing the drug packages to Northeast Correctional. Further, defense counsel argued that
while the evidence of Defendant’s guilt may be strong, evidence of guilt does not equate to evidence
of flight risk or danger to the community. Finally, defense counsel argued that geographic
restrictions could be imposed that would reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance and ensure that
Defendant is not a danger to the community.
4 The United States noted that the drive-by shooting occurred more than seven months after Defendant’s initial
cooperation with law enforcement and argued that this fact should cast some doubt as to whether the drive-by shooting
occurred in retaliation for Defendant’s cooperation with law enforcement. At the same time, the United States could not
say at what point Defendant stopped communicating and cooperating with law enforcement. The Government also
noted that Defendant had continued to engage in drug trafficking activity after his initial contact with law enforcement
and that the trafficking activity could have just as easily have been the basis for the drive-by shooting.
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 7 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

In response to Defendant’s argument, the United States proffered that due to the
unavailability of the officer involved in Defendant’s arrest to testify at the hearing held in the Middle
District of Tennessee, Ms. Barradas was never confronted with her knowledge of Defendant’s drug
trafficking activity or the fact that she had been present at “Ceasar’s” residence and observed large
amount of narcotics on the night before Defendant’s arrest. As such, Judge Newbern did not have
this information available to her when she determined that Ms. Barradas would be a suitable third-
party custodian for Defendant. Further, the United States noted that pinpoint GPS monitoring is not
currently available to the Probation Office in this division of the district so if Defendant were to be
released, his exact location could not be monitored.
III. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
“If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge . . ., the attorney for the Government
may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the
order[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1). The district judge reviews the decision to release or detain the
defendant de novo.5 United States v. Yamini, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1128 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (holding
that although the Sixth Circuit has yet to address this issue, the majority of circuits hold that de novo
review is appropriate); see also United States v. Tolbert, Nos. 3:09-CR-56-TAV-HBG & 3:10-CR-
30-TAV-HBG, 2017 WL 6003075, *4 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2017). “[M]eaningful de novo review
means that the district court should engage in the same analysis, with the same options, under §
3142 as the magistrate judge.” Yamini, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 1129; Tolbert, 2017 WL 6003075 at *4
(observing that the district judge has discretion to consider additional evidence to that presented at
5 Although a magistrate judge cannot review another magistrate judge’s decision to release a defendant, a district judge
may refer the Government’s motion to revoke a release order to a magistrate judge for report and recommendation.
United States v. Shaw, No. 5:17-CR-26-KKC- REW, 2017 WL 5711438, *2–3 (E.D. Ky Nov. 17, 2017) (Wier, MJ),
report and recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 5710443 (E.D. Ky Nov. 27, 2017) (Caldwell, CJ). The district judge
will ultimately conduct a de novo review of the detention issue by reviewing the report and recommendation, which
considers all the evidence offered to that point. Shaw, 2017 WL 5711438. at *3.
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 8 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

the original detention hearing). A motion to revoke a release order must be “determined promptly.”
18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).
Under the Bail Reform Act, the Court must determine “whether there are conditions of
release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of
any other person and the community[.]” 18 U.S.C § 3142(g). In making this determination, the
Court must consider the available information relating to (1) the nature and circumstances of the
charged offense; (2) the weight of the evidence against the Defendant; (3) the Defendant’s history
and characteristics; and (4) “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community
that would be posed by the [Defendant’s] release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1)-(4).
In the instant case, because of the crime charged, there is a rebuttable presumption “that no
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as
required and the safety of the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). Here, the indictment
provides the necessary probable cause to believe that Defendant has committed an offense in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945
(6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985)); see also United
States v. Foster, No. 20-5548, 2020 WL 6791572, at * 1 (6th Cir. July 20, 2020) (holding that the
indictment 	establishes 	probable 	cause 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	rebuttable 	presumption). 	This
presumption places the burden of production with Defendant, while the Government retains the
burden of persuasion. Stone, 608 F.3d at 945. To satisfy the burden of production, a defendant must
present at least some evidence that he is not a danger or a flight risk. Id. Even when the defendant
meets the burden of production, the Court must continue to weigh the presumption that detention is
appropriate along with the other factors, because “the presumption reflects Congress’s substantive
judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.” Id.
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 9 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

IV. 	ANALYSIS
In considering whether Defendant has overcome the presumption that he should be
detained, the Court notes that the bar is low to rebut the presumption. However, the evidence shows
that Defendant admitted to participating in drug trafficking activity and continued to participate in
drug trafficking even after he was initially questioned by officers and knew that he was under
investigation. Additionally, Defendant stopped communicating with law enforcement after
agreeing to stay in contact with them. Further, Defendant was in possession of firearms in
conjunction with drug trafficking activity. Given that Defendant has admitted to trafficking
narcotics, 	was 	in 	possession 	of 	firearms, 	failed 	to 	abide 	by 	an 	agreement 	to 	maintain
communication with law enforcement, and was subjected to a recent drive-by shooting, the Court
cannot find that he has cleared even the low bar necessary to overcome the presumption that he
should be detained. At the same time, even if the Court could find that Defendant had overcome
the presumption, it would still find that the applicable factors weigh in favor of detention.
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the court first considers the nature and
circumstances of the offenses alleged. While the charged offense is not one of violence, as
Defendant’s counsel pointed out, it is still a serious offense, and Defendant faces a long mandatory
minimum prison sentence if he is convicted. Additionally, through his conduct in connection with
the charged offense, Defendant has introduced significant amounts of illegal drugs into the
community. Finally, the evidence also demonstrates that Defendant was in possession of firearms
while engaging in drug trafficking. As such, the nature and circumstances of the offense weigh in
favor of detention.
Just as with the nature and circumstances of the offense, the weight of the evidence factor
weighs in favor of Defendant’s detention. The Government has presented significant proof that
Defendant was involved in extensive drug trafficking and has ties to a Mexican drug cartel.
Defendant has even admitted that he has participated in drug trafficking and delivery of drug
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 10 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

money. Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that Defendant continued to engage in drug
trafficking even after he had been interviewed by law enforcement and knew he was under
investigation, casting serious doubt on whether Defendant would discontinue such behavior while
on pretrial release.
Defendant’s history and characteristics offer both positives and negatives. As previously
noted, Defendant does not have any criminal history and appears to have strong family support.
At the same time, Defendant’s girlfriend, Ms. Barradas, admitted to having significant knowledge
of Defendant’s drug trafficking and money laundering activities and had herself been in the
presence of large amounts of drugs and cash. All of this took place while Defendant was living
with her, but Ms. Barradas appears to have taken no steps to try to put a stop to Defendant’s illegal
activities. As such, the Court cannot find Ms. Barradas to be a suitable third-party custodian for
Defendant. Similarly, while Defendant’s parents have offered to permit him to reside in their home
without Ms. Barradas, Defendant was also engaging in drug trafficking while living with his
parents and it was their house that was the target of the drive-by shooting. Additionally, although
the fact that Defendant was employed prior to arrest weighs in favor of release, the Court notes
that he was working as a delivery driver for Uber Eats and doing odd jobs. These types of
employment do not require adherence to a strict schedule and involve minimal oversight, leaving
Defendant with more freedom to continue to engage in illegal activity. Further, while Defendant
has significant ties to the Middle District of Tennessee, he has no ties to this District. Given
Defendant’s lack of ties to this district and the fact that he engaged in drug trafficking while
residing with both his parents and Ms. Barradas, the Court finds that this factor does weigh in favor
of detention.
Finally, the court must consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or
the community that would be posed by Defendant’s release. Due to the serious risk of danger
associated with trafficking large quantities of methamphetamine, including Defendant’s ties to a
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 11 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>

large-scale Mexican drug cartel, and Defendant’s possession and apparent use of firearms as
evidenced by the presence of spent casings in his bedroom and vehicle, the Court finds that no
condition or combination of conditions would be sufficient to reasonably ensure the safety of the
community. This is particularly true given that Defendant continued to engage in drug trafficking
and money laundering activities even after he knew he was under investigation by law enforcement
and his girlfriend had significant knowledge regarding both activities, if not actual involvement in
them. As such, the undersigned finds this factor also weights in favor of detention.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the evidence and information provided at
the hearing established that Defendant did not rebut the presumption that he should be detained
pending trial, but even if he had, it further established: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that
Defendant poses a serious risk of danger to the community or another person; (2) by preponderance
of the evidence that Defendant poses a risk of flight, although this is not the Court’ primary
concern; and (3) that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of Defendant and safety the community or any individual if Defendant is released
pretrial. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the United States’ Motion for Review of
Release Order [Doc. 9] be GRANTED and that Defendant be detained pending trial.6
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Cynthia Richardson Wyrick
United States Magistrate Judge
6 Any objections to this report and recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of
a copy of this recommended disposition on the objecting party. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). Failure to file objections
within the time specified waives the right to review by the District Court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); see United States v.
Branch, 537 F.3d 582 (6th. Cir. 2008); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (providing that failure to file
objections in compliance with the time period waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order). The District Court
need not provide de novo review where objections to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive, or general.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith
v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Case 2:25-cr-00107-DCLC-CRW Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 12 of 12
PageID #: <pageID>