USA v. Majeau et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-CR-286 HEA
)
EARL BANKS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Earl Banks’s Motion to Revoke
Order of Detention. (ECF No. 175). The Government filed a response opposing the
motion. (ECF No. 177). Defendant did not file a reply, and the time to do so has
expired. Defendant’s motion is ripe for disposition. The Court has conducted de novo
review of the record and finds further hearing is not required on the issue of
detention. The Court will deny Defendant’s motion.
Background
Defendant is charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri with violating §§ 841 and 846 of the Controlled Substances Act.
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (conspiracy) and 841(a)(1) (prohibiting the possession and
distribution of controlled substances). A grand jury indicted Defendant and eight
others for knowingly and intentionally conspiring to possess with the intent to
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 1 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
distribute and distribute five kilograms of cocaine. Under these sections, violations
involving five kilograms of cocaine require a minimum prison sentence of 10 years
and a maximum sentence of life. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II).
Defendant was arrested on July 9, 2025, in Michigan and was presented for
his Rule 5(c)(3) initial appearance in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan. On July 15, 2025, a detention hearing was held before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. At the detention hearing, the Government
moved for detention based on the presumption of detention, the weight of the
evidence, danger to the community, and flight risk. The Court heard Defendant’s
arguments as to why detention was not necessary. A Bail Report was issued by the
Pretrial Services Office for the Eastern District of Michigan on the same date
(“Michigan Bail Report”). The Michigan Bail Report recommends that there are no
conditions that could assure Defendant’s appearance in court or the safety of the
community.
Judge Altman considered the relevant factors and concluded Defendant
should be detained pending trial. 	She found that the Government had shown the
following: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of
conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the
community; and (2) by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or
combination 	of 	conditions 	of 	release 	would 	reasonably 	assure 	Defendant’s
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 2 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
appearance as required. The basis for detention included that Defendant would be
subject to a lengthy period of incarceration if convicted; his prior criminal history;
his history of violence or use of weapons; prior violations of probation, parole, or
supervised release; prior failure to appear in court as ordered; and participation in
criminal activity while on probation, parole, or supervision. 	Judge Altman also
found that the weight of the evidence against Defendant is strong.
On August 4, 2025, a Bail Report was issued by the Pretrial Services Office
for the Eastern District of Missouri (“Missouri Bail Report”). 	The Missouri Bail
Report recommends that there are no conditions that could assure Defendant’s
appearance in court or the safety of the community.
Legal Standard
The Court reviews the detention order de novo, without deference to the
Magistrate Judge’s findings. See United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191-92
(9th Cir. 1990); see generally United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481-82 (8th
Cir. 1995) (en banc) (de novo review of order setting bond appropriate). The Court
is “required to analyze the conditions of release to determine whether any would
give reasonable assurance of appearance.” Id. at 1485.
A defendant retains the constitutional presumption of innocence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(j). A defendant may be detained before trial “[o]nly if the government shows
by clear and convincing evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 3 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
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. Kisling, 334 F.3d 734, 735 (8th Cir. 2003)
(citing United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985)); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(c), (e)-(f). “[E]ither danger to the community or risk of flight is sufficient to
authorize detention.” United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1991)
(quoting United States v. Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1986)).
In determining if release conditions exist that will reasonably assure the
appearance of a defendant at trial, the Court must consider the following factors:
(1) 	the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including
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;
(2) 	the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) 	the history and characteristics of the person, including—
(A) 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; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the
person was on probation, on parole, or on other release
pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence
for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) 	the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release.
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 4 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
“Reviewing without deference does not require the district court to start over
in every case and proceed as if the magistrate’s decision and findings do not exist.”
United States v. Cook, 87 F.4th 920, 924 (8th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up) (quoted case
omitted). “If the district court agrees fully with the magistrate’s order and reasons,
it may adopt the order.” Id. (citing cases).
In this case, probable cause exists that Defendant committed an offense under
the 	Controlled 	Substance 	Act, 	and 	a 	rebuttable 	presumption 	arises 	against
Defendant’s release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A); United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d
793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Ward, 63. F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D.
Cal. 1999). 	In order to rebut the presumption, Defendant must produce evidence
that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Abad, 350 F.3d
at 797 (“‘In a presumption case such as this, a defendant bears a limited burden of
production-not a burden of persuasion ....’”) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254
F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)). If Defendant meets his burden of production, “‘the
presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely but remains a factor to
be considered among those weighed by the district court.’” Id.
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 5 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

6
Discussion
The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the Government’s motion
for detention, the Michigan Bail Report, the Missouri Bail Report, the Order of
Detention, a recording of the detention hearing in Michigan, and the parties’ briefing
on the instant motion. Having done so, the Court agrees with Judge Altman that
Defendant should be detained pending trial.
The Court finds that the serious nature of the offenses charged weighs heavily
in favor of detention. Defendant is charged with offenses involving the distribution
of significant quantities of cocaine. Violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) require
a minimum 10-year prison sentence, which is a long term of imprisonment and
provides an incentive to flee prior to trial. Defendant’s history and characteristics
also weigh in favor of pretrial detention. Although he has significant ties to the
Eastern District of Michigan, he had no ties to this District. Defendant has a criminal
record that includes multiple felony convictions, and he has had five outstanding
warrants for failure to appear. The Court also agrees with Judge Altman that house
arrest will not prevent Defendant from trafficking in narcotics, which he has been
arrested for multiple times while on other Court-ordered supervision. 	In sum, the
relevant factors show that Defendant presents a risk of non-appearance, and that he
presents a danger to the community.
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 6 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>

7
Conclusion
Based 	on 	de 	novo 	review 	of 	the 	entire 	record, 	the 	Court 	finds 	the
circumstances warrant detention as the Government has shown by clear and
convincing evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will reasonably
assure the safety of the community, and it has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure Defendant’s
appearance.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Earl Banks’s Motion to Revoke
Order of Detention and Request for Hearing is DENIED. [ECF No. 175]
Dated this 4 th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cr-00286-HEA-PLC Doc. #: 204 Filed: 12/04/25 Page: 7 of 7 PageID
#: <pageID>