USA v. SIMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. 	Case No. 3:25-cr-197-TKW
ISAIAH MARKEIS SIMS,
__________________________/
ORDER OF DETENTION
On December 9, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Government’s motion
for detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3141, et seq. Based upon the information contained in the pretrial services report,
the evidence presented at the hearing, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds
Defendant 	shall 	be 	detained 	pending 	trial 	because 	there 	is 	no 	condition 	or
combination of conditions which will reasonably assure the safety of the community.
I. 	The Bail Reform Act
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 provides a framework for determining whether
pretrial detention is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142. “Congress has determined
that [w]hen there is a strong probability that a person will commit additional crimes
if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that
detention is, on balance, appropriate.” United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400,
403 (2d Cir. 1985).
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
A court may release a defendant pending trial on appropriate conditions, 18
U.S.C. § 3142(a)(2), or detain the defendant, id. § 3142(a)(4). 	See Reno v. Koray,
515 U.S. 50, 57 (1995). The court shall detain a defendant if it determines that “no
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(1); United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). A finding
of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, while a
finding of danger must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United
States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir. 1990).
“Clear and convincing evidence” entails more than a preponderance of the
evidence, but less than evidence establishing a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423-25 (1979); Colorado v. New Mexico, 467
U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (clear and convincing evidence is evidence which induces “an
abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are ‘highly probable’”).
“To find danger to the community under this standard of proof requires that the
evidence support such a conclusion with a high degree of certainty.” 	Chimurenga,
760 F.2d at 405. Additionally, “danger to the community” does not refer to simply
risk of physical violence; instead, it includes a danger that the defendant might
engage in criminal activity that is a detriment to the community. See United States
v. Ingram, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1077 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (collecting cases).
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
To determine whether a defendant should be released on conditions or
detained, courts consider the following factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of
the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence; (2) the
weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the
person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release. 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Although § 3142(g) identifies the factors the courts should consider, it says nothing
about the relative weight a court should give them when deciding whether to release
or detain a defendant. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Instead, the weight given
to each factor will inevitably vary from case to case and might even vary depending
on whether the inquiry relates to a defendant’s danger or to his risk of flight. United
States v. Zhang, 55 F.4th 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2022).
As discussed below, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of detention.
II. 	Analysis
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged.
When considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the court
considers “whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a
Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance,
firearm, explosive, or destructive device.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). Here, Defendant
has been indicted by the grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
B. Weight of the Evidence.
This factor requires the district court to consider evidence proffered by the
Government which it intends to use at Defendant’s trial. In considering the weight
of the evidence, the court considers both the weight of the evidence of dangerousness
and the Government’s underlying case against the defendant. 	United States v.
Berkun, 392 F. App’x 901, 903 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Norris, 188 F. App’x
822, 830 (11th Cir. 2006). 	“While it is true that the Court’s determination of this
factor ‘neither requires nor permits a pretrial determination of guilt,’ the Court can
still weigh the evidence and determine whether it proves that the defendant poses a
risk to others and/or is at risk of flight.” 	United States v. Slatten, 286 F. Supp. 3d
61, 67–68 (D.D.C. 2017) (internal citations omitted), aff’d, 712 F. App’x 15 (D.C.
Cir. 2018); United States v. Pirk, 220 F. Supp. 3d 402, 410 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). The
weight of the evidence is a common-sense consideration.
At the detention hearing, the Government moved into evidence the State
offense report that resulted in Defendant being federally indicted. 	See Exhibit 1.
According to that report, on August 24, 2025, law enforcement conducted a traffic
stop on a vehicle in which Defendant was the passenger, and his girlfriend, S.
George, was the driver. An officer smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the
car and observed a leafy green substance on the top of the center console, consistent
with the appearance of marijuana. 	An officer asked George and the Defendant to
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
exit the vehicle and asked Defendant if he could pat him down for weapons. 	The
Defendant declined and fled from officers on foot. Officers pursued and could see
the Defendant reaching into his waistband multiple times to pull an item out of his
pants. 	Eventually, officers were able to detain the Defendant after he fell to the
ground. When they did so, officers observed a black handgun directly beside them.
The handgun was a black Glock 19, loaded with 17 rounds, including 1 round in the
chamber.
C. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant.
In considering the history and characteristics of a defendant, the court
considers such matters as the person’s character, physical and mental condition,
family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community,
community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal
history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings. 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g).
Defendant is 23 years old and has lived with his girlfriend, George, for at least
2 years. 	The two currently reside in a government subsidized apartment complex
with their 7-month-old daughter. Defendant did not graduate from high school and
has never been employed. Defendant does not have a driver’s license. According
to George, Defendant can continue to reside with her. Alternatively, he can reside
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
with his mother, although his four brothers already reside with his mother.
Defendant also has a 4-year-old child who does not reside with him.
Despite Defendant’s age, his criminal history is not insignificant and is
continuous. Based on the bond report, Defendant was first convicted for possession
of marijuana and drug equipment when he was 14 years old. He was sentenced to
juvenile probation and violated it on three separate occasions by (1) getting school
disciplinary referrals; (2) having 111 unexcused class periods; (3) fighting in school;
and (4) plagiarizing a court-ordered essay. His probation was eventually terminated
in February 2020, and less than six months later he was arrested for possession of a
controlled substance without a prescription. Even though he was 17 at the time, the
case was transferred to adult court, and he was sentenced on June 9, 2022, to 50 days
after serving 365 days.
In the meantime, on May 27, 2021, Defendant was arrested and indicted on a
premeditated murder charge for a shooting at an apartment that occurred on
December 19, 2020, where the victim was shot multiple times.1 See Exhibit 2.
According to the offense report, a witness advised law enforcement in January 2021
that she initially lied to law enforcement about the identity of the shooters, and that
one of the shooters was Defendant. 	The witness stated she lied because she was
1 The pretrial services report indicates the shooting occurred on December 19, 2021, but the arrest
report from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office confirms the shooting occurred in 2020.
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
afraid Defendant would hurt or kill her. A review of threatening text messages from
the Defendant on the witness’s phone corroborated the witness’s fears. Nonetheless,
the State chose not to prosecute the case against Defendant and Defendant was
eventually released from custody in November 2022.
Six months later, Defendant was arrested for resisting arrest without violence
after he ran from law enforcement while they were executing a search warrant on a
residence. 	According to the offense report, see Exhibit 3, the SWAT team made
entry into and secured the residence because of information received about firearms
in the residence. 	Defendant was given probation and violated that probation by
failing to pay court fines. He served 20 days for that violation and immediately after
his release was arrested and pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge for possession
of marijuana. Less than a year later, he was arrested by the State on the instant felon
in possession of a firearm offense and for resisting arrest. 	Defendant has been on
State bond since August 27, 2025.
D. The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger Posted by Release.
Based on Defendant’s continuous and seemingly unabated criminal behavior,
his prior violations of probation, his penchant to flee from law enforcement, and the
nature of this offense – which involves possession of a loaded Glock, the Court finds
there is a serious danger that, if released, Defendant will continue to engage in
criminal activity, which constitutes a danger to the community. 	The fact that
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
3:25-cr-197-TKW
Defendant has not yet been convicted of a violent crime is not dispositive of whether
he should be detained.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant be held in the custody of
the Attorney General or her designated representative pending trial in this matter.
The 	Attorney 	General 	or 	her 	designated 	representative 	shall, 	to 	the 	extent
practicable, confine Defendant separate from persons awaiting or serving sentences
or being held in custody pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to consult with counsel in private while in custody. On order of a court
of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in
charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the Defendant to the United States
Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10 th day of December 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cr-00197-TKW Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 8 of 8