USA v. Jones et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:26-cr-63(5)
vs.
PHILLIP BENSON, District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF
THE JUNE 22, 2026 RELEASE ORDER (Doc. No. 51); AND (2) ORDERING
DEFENDANT DETAINED PRE-TRIAL
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court upon the Government’s motion for revocation, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3145(a), of the pre-trial release Order issued by the United States Magistrate Judge on
June 22, 2026. Doc. No. 51. Defendant has not responded to the Government’s motion, and the
time for doing so has passed. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant stands indicted, along with four other defendants, on two offenses including
conspiracy to traffic firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 933(a)(1) and (a)(3), and dealing of
firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 924(a)(1)(D). Doc. No. 8.
In June 2026, the Government moved for pre-trial detention, arguing that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance and the safety of any
person or the community. Doc. No. 16, PageID 163; see 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq.
On June 17, 2026, Pretrial Services recommended that Defendant be detained without bond
pending trial. Doc. No. 41. The Pretrial Service report concluded: (1) Defendant poses a risk of
non-appearance due to reported marijuana use, prior failures to appear for misdemeanor offenses,
Case: 3:26-cr-00063-MJN Doc #: 67 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
and unemployment; and (2) Defendant poses a risk of danger to the community due to the nature
of the alleged offenses, prior criminal history involving weapons and violence, reported marijuana
use, and prior non-compliance with supervision. Id. at PageID 73. Notably, the alleged offenses
in this case occurred while Defendant was on active probation for three other criminal cases. Id.
Defendant appeared before Judge Gentry for a detention hearing on June 18, 2026. See
Doc. No. 52. Judge Gentry carefully reviewed, among other factors, the nature and circumstances
of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence of risk of flight or dangerousness, Defendant’s
history and characteristics, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by Defendant’s release. Id. at PageID 248–49. Judge Gentry
ultimately held the Government: (1) did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that Defendant must be detained to reasonably assure the safety of any other person or
the community; and (2) did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
Defendant must be detained to reasonably assure his appearance as required. Id. at PageID 249.
Judge Gentry thus ordered Defendant released pending trial, but—recognizing that other judicial
officers might reasonably disagree—stayed the ruling pending the Government’s filing of a motion
for revocation. Id. at PageID 254. Defendant has remained detained pre-trial while the instant
motion was under consideration.
The Government now moves to revoke the release Order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).
Doc. No. 51. It argues that there are no conditions of release that would assure Defendant’s
appearance at future proceedings or community safety. Id. at PageID 241. The Court agrees.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Government may move to revoke a release order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1). A
district judge must then review de novo a magistrate judge’s detention order. Id.; United States v.
Brown, No. 2:08-cr-106, 2008 WL 2098070, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2008). A hearing on a
Case: 3:26-cr-00063-MJN Doc #: 67 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
§ 3145(a) motion is not required. United States v. Romans, No. 00-5456, 2000 WL 658042, at *1
(6th Cir. May 9, 2000); United States v. Williams, No. 2:20-cr-142, 2020 WL 6866404, at *2 (S.D.
Ohio Nov. 23, 2020).
III. ANALYSIS
When reviewing the magistrate judge’s detention order, the district judge relies on the 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (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
defendant’s release.” United States v. Webb, No. 00-6368, 2000 WL 1721060, at *1–2 (6th Cir.
Nov. 6, 2000). A Court will order a defendant detained upon finding that there are no conditions
that “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). “A judicial finding of either substantial
danger to the community or risk of flight” is sufficient to detain a defendant. Williams, 2020 WL
6866404, at *2. “The government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence,
and it must prove dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing
evidence.” United States v. Hinton, 113 F. Appʼx 76, 77 (6th Cir. 2004).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all filings in this matter, including the
Government’s motion, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burdens and that
Defendant poses both a substantial danger to the community and a risk of flight. Moreover, the
§ 3142(g) factors favor keeping Defendant detained pending trial.
Defendant has been charged with serious firearm-related offenses and faces up to fifteen
years in prison. Doc. No. 51 at PageID 237–38. The seriousness of the underlying offenses, which
allegedly occurred while Defendant was on three active terms of probation that each prohibited
him from possessing a firearm, and the length of the potential sentence, both weigh in favor of pre-
Case: 3:26-cr-00063-MJN Doc #: 67 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
trial detention. See United States v. Rankin, 289 F.Supp.3d 846, 849 (S.D. Ohio 2017); see also
United States v. Slocum, Case No. 2:23-cr-072, 2023 WL 6880375, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18,
2023). Defendant’s history and characteristics likewise weigh in favor of pre-trial detention. He
has a documented history of failing to comply with conditions of release. See Doc. No. 41 at
PageID 71–72. The record before the Court also shows that Defendant is unemployed and
continues to use and test positive for marijuana despite being on active probation. Id. Given
Defendant’s substance use, historic lack of compliance with court-imposed conditions of release,
and potential access to firearms, the Court concludes that pre-trial detention is warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that there are no conditions of release that
would assure community safety and Defendant’s appearance for court proceedings. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(1). Thus, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion for revocation of the June 22,
2026 release Order and ORDERS that Defendant remain detained pending trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cr-00063-MJN Doc #: 67 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>