USA v. Keeling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CINCINNATI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARICO KEELING,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Criminal No. 24-114-1-ART
ORDER
*** 	*** 	*** 	***
Marico Keeling currently faces charges for conspiring to distribute fentanyl, cocaine, and
methamphetamine and for distributing methamphetamine and fentanyl. 	R. 65. 	After Keeling’s
case resulted in a mistrial, he moved for bail pending retrial. R. 62. The court denied that motion.
R. 68. 	Keeling now moves for reconsideration of the court’s decision to deny bail pending his
retrial. R. 125. But he hasn’t identified any new information that affects whether bail conditions
could reasonably assure his appearance or the safety of the community. 	So the motion for
reconsideration of bail is DENIED.
A defendant may be detained pending trial if the court finds that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance or protect the safety
of the community. 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). 	And there’s a rebuttable presumption that no such
conditions exist if there is probable cause that the defendant committed certain drug offenses like
the ones that Keeling is charged with. See id. § 3412(e)(3); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). If
the court orders detention, a defendant may later move to reopen that determination if (1) there is
Case: 1:24-cr-00114-DRC Doc #: 128 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
new information that wasn’t known to him at the time of the previous bail hearing and (2) that new
information materially affects whether there are any conditions of release that would reasonably
assure his appearance or the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Because Keeling can’t
satisfy either of those requirements, his motion for reconsideration fails.
First, Keeling hasn’t identified any new information that he didn’t know at the time of the
court’s previous bail decision. He primarily attacks the strength of the case against him because
his first trial resulted in a hung jury. 	According to Keeling, “[t]he questionable weight of the
evidence is assurance that [he] has no reason to avoid appearing in this case or further jeopardize
his position by endangering the community.” R. 125, Pg. ID 1761. But a defendant’s assessment
of the strength of the case against him isn’t enough to justify reopening a bail determination.
United States v. Jerdine, No. 08-CR-481 (LBW), 2009 WL 4906564, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18,
2009). Rather, there must be “truly changed circumstances, something unexpected, or a significant
event.” Id. None is present here.
Keeling primarily points to a new video of a post-arrest interview with A.C., who was a
drug dealer and cooperating witness for the government. R. 125, Pg. ID 1760. Keeling explains
that in the video, government agents accuse A.C. of lying about the source of her narcotics, which
creates new doubts about her testimony that Keeling was her primary supplier. 	Id. 	But at
Keeling’s first trial, his counsel vigorously cross-examined A.C. about her credibility and the
identity of her supplier. See R. 70, Pg. ID 393–406, 408–15. So obtaining one additional means
to attack A.C.’s credibility isn’t a significant enough event to justify revisiting the court’s decision
to deny bail pending his retrial.
Additionally, 	Keeling 	emphasizes 	that 	he 	recently 	learned 	the 	Drug 	Enforcement
Administration destroyed the narcotics that A.C. allegedly purchased from him. R. 125, Pg. ID
Case: 1:24-cr-00114-DRC Doc #: 128 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
1760. But the parties don’t dispute that the seized drugs were methamphetamine and fentanyl. In
fact, Keeling previously stipulated to that fact. R. 50, Pg. ID 230–31. In light of this admission,
Keeling provides no explanation for how the destruction of the drugs undermines the strength of
the case against him. So this supposedly “new information” doesn’t warrant revisiting the court’s
bail decision either.
Second, even if there were truly new information here, it wouldn’t materially affect
whether any conditions of release could reasonably protect the community. For starters, Keeling
has a long history of drug trafficking dating back almost 20 years. R. 8, Pg. ID 43. That alone
demonstrates the danger he’d pose to the community if released. See United States v. Stone, 608
F.3d 939, 947 n.6 (6th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). And despite his assurances to the contrary,
there’s reason to believe he’d return to drug trafficking if released pending trial. After all, Keeling
allegedly committed the drug-trafficking offenses at issue here while on probation and bond for
similar state drug charges. R. 8, Pg. ID 45. What’s more, Keeling’s criminal record isn’t limited
to drug-trafficking offenses. Rather, he’s been convicted of violent felonies including assault and
robbery. 	See id. at 43. 	This criminal history simply underscores the danger he’d pose to the
community if released.
Likewise, any new information wouldn’t materially affect whether conditions of release
could reasonably assure Keeling’s appearance at trial. 	If convicted, he faces a mandatory
minimum of five years’ imprisonment and could receive up to 40 years’ imprisonment. 	See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Such a lengthy potential sentence provides a strong incentive for Keeling
to flee rather than face trial. Plus, Keeling has a track record of failing to appear for court, which
has twice resulted in contempt charges. R. 8, Pg. ID 43–44. And he’s sought to subvert the judicial
process in the past by tampering with evidence. Id. at 43 (listing a state conviction for tampering
Case: 1:24-cr-00114-DRC Doc #: 128 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
with evidence). So the substantial sentence that Keeling faces and his previous failures to obey
court orders indicate that no conditions of release could reasonably assure his appearance.
It is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of bond, R. 125, is DENIED.
This the 24th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Amul R. Thapar
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation
_______________________________	__
A 	l R Th
Case: 1:24-cr-00114-DRC Doc #: 128 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>