USA v. Patterson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CASE NO. 5:22-CR-50018-001
MACY RENEE PATTERSON 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
On this 23 rd day of June 2022, the Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release
(ECF No. 24) filed on June 7, 2022, came on for hearing. Defendant and her counsel, Kim Weber,
along with Kim Harris, counsel for the United States, appeared in person. 	During its hearing,
Defendant admitted she violated her pre-trial release conditions on multiple occasions – including
violations after repeated warnings from the United States Probation Officer, violations after the
Court approved the Petition for Action based on the alleged violations and scheduled a hearing,
and violations within days of the Court’s hearing after her own counsel advised her to amend her
behavior. In addition to the admissions of Defendant, the Court considered Government’s Exhibits
Nos. 1 and 2, and multiple communications between the undersigned and the U.S. Probation
Officer assigned to Defendant for supervision.
Based on the record before it and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(B), the Court finds
clear and convincing evidence that Defendant violated the pre-trial release conditions imposed on
January 19, 2022, by making hundreds of communications with her co-conspirator between
February 23, 2022, and June 19, 2022 (including discussing and providing financial resources, and
on occasion, using a 3 rd party for communications) and by testing positive for consumption of
Case 5:22-cr-50018-TLB Document 28 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
alcohol despite being both prohibited by the Court and barred by law due to her age. The Court
further finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant is unlikely to abide by any
condition or combination of conditions of release having established a consistent pattern of
violations, repeated dishonesty concerning those violations, and a patent disdain for the conditions
governing release pending trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A). U.S. v. Barber, 2013 WL 3580195
(W.D. Ark. July 12, 2013). 	There was argument for leniency, but no evidence Defendant is
interested in modifying her behavior to preserve her pre-trial release.
For these reasons, Defendant’s bond is revoked, and Defendant remanded to the custody
of the U.S. Marshal’s Service to await trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:22-cr-50018-TLB Document 28 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>