USA v. Rose et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Byron Clark,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Criminal Action H-25-305-5
ORDER REVOKING BOND
Pending before the court is the Petition for Action on Pretrial
Release. ECF No. 129. The Petition alleges that Clark violated his
conditions of release by committing a new law violation, testing
positive for a controlled substance, and failing to maintain or
actively seek full time, verifiable employment. Id.
The court held a hearing on the Petition on April 30, 2026.
The government did not present evidence to show Clark’s failure
to maintain employment or his alleged positive test result. The
court finds those violations NOT TRUE.
The government presented evidence that Clark possessed
with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The evidence at
the hearing showed that Clark was stopped in traffic on March 6,
2026. Clark was the only occupant of the vehicle. After a K-9
search 	of 	the 	vehicle, 	police 	found 	approximately 	400 	tablets
containing 	carisoprodol, 	also 	known 	as 	Soma, 	as 	well 	as
hydrocodone tablets. The Soma tablets were packaged in the way
that they would be received by a pharmacy, not how they would be
dispensed to a patient. The quantity of tablets was consistent with
drug trafficking, not prescription use. Clark does not have a
prescription 	for 	Soma 	that 	would 	permit 	him 	to 	possess 	the
number of tablets found. The court finds probable cause to believe
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cr-00305 Document 137 Filed 05/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
that Clark possessed with the intent to distribute a controlled
substance.
The defense made arguments suggesting that a motion to
suppress the drugs could be made in the context of a criminal
prosecution. However, suppression issues are not relevant to the
issue of probable cause. Defendant also denies that the drugs were
his. That does not defeat the court’s probable cause finding.
Revocation 	of 	supervised 	release 	is 	governed 	by
18 U.S.C § 3148. 	Under 	section 	3148(b)(1), 	the 	judicial 	officer
“shall enter an order of revocation” if (1) there is either probable
cause that the defendant committed a new crime or violated any
other conditions of release, and (2) that there are (A) no conditions
that will assure his appearance, or (B) he is unlikely to abide by
any conditions of release. Moreover, if the court finds probable
cause that the defendant committed a felony while on release,
there is a presumption that there are no conditions that will assure
that the defendant will not pose a danger to the community. 18
U.S.C. § 3148(b).
The court found probable cause to believe that the defendant
committed a felony while on release. The foregoing presumption
therefore arises. Clark has not rebutted that presumption. Clark
presented a character witness—Arthur Smith. Mr. Smith had
many positive things to say about Clark, but he had no knowledge
about Clark’s lengthy criminal history. The court therefore does
not 	credit 	Smith’s 	testimony. 	Absent 	evidence 	rebutting 	the
presumption, the court finds that there are no conditions that will
assure the safety of the community were Clark to be released. He
must therefore be detained under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b).
The court also notes that Clark’s violation conduct is very
similar to the conduct for which he is under indictment. Clark also
has 	a 	long 	criminal 	history 	that 	includes 	offenses 	for 	drug
distribution 	and 	possession, 	burglary, 	evading 	arrest, 	and
Case 4:25-cr-00305 Document 137 Filed 05/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
violations of conditions of release. Taking together all the facts
before the court, including those presented at the hearing, the
allegations in the indictment, and the Pretrial Services report, the
court concludes that Clark is unlikely to follow the court’s orders
and that there are no conditions that will assure the safety of the
community if he is released. Thus, independent from the
presumption, detention is warranted.
Clark’s bond is REVOKED. Clark ORDERED to be
DETAINED pending trial.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on May 1, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cr-00305 Document 137 Filed 05/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3