USA v. Gogolack, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
HOWARD HINKLE, JR.,
Defendant.
23-CR-99-LJV-JJM
DECISION & ORDER
The government moves to revoke an order of United States Magistrate Judge
Jeremiah J. McCarthy granting a renewed motion for release filed by the defendant,
Howard Hinkle, Jr. See Docket Item 217 (appealing Docket Item 209). After careful
review of the parties’ briefing, see Docket Items 217, 235, 274, and 299, and oral
argument, see Docket Item 257, this Court grants the government’s motion and revokes
Judge McCarthy’s release order for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND1
On November 3, 2023, United States District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., ordered
that Hinkle be detained.2 Docket Item 12. Judge Sinatra based that decision on,
among other things:
1 This Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the factual background of this
case and recounts only the facts necessary to explain its decision.
2 Hinkle initially was ordered released on conditions by United States Magistrate
Michael J. Roemer, see Docket Item 6; however, Judge Sinatra granted the
government’s motion to revoke that order, see Docket Item 12.
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 6

2
• 	“the quantities of [marijuana] plants and firearms” found at Hinkle’s
residence;
• 	“the SWAT team’s effort to clear the residence; the difficult circumstances
to clear the house”; Hinkle’s “conduct when the agents were clearing his
house”; “and the danger that [Hinkle’s] actions in sequence created”;
• 	“the placement of [Hinkle’s] weapons”;
• 	“the proffers regarding the marijuana, the text messages, the sales, et
cetera, and the firearms in conjunction with the marijuana sales and in
conjunction with the growing of marijuana and in conjunction with the
felony”;
• 	Hinkle’s “questionable employment situation . . . in terms of where is the
money coming from to support himself month to month”;
• 	Hinkle’s “criminal history”;
• 	Hinkle’s “mental health and his substance abuse”;
• 	Hinkle’s “December . . . 2021 threat to kill his wife and himself”; and
• 	“the grow operation” and “the firearms.”
Docket Item 217-2 at 59-60. Judge Sinatra also considered “for what it is worth” the
government proffer “regarding the death of Crystal Quinn and the statement about her
having a bounty on her life.” Id. at 60. Judge Sinatra noted that the statement about
the bounty was “corroborated by someone other than [Simon] Gogolack.” Id.
Based on all that, Judge Sinatra found “by clear and convincing evidence that . . .
Hinkle’s release would pose a danger to the safety of others in the community, and that
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 6

3
no condition or combination of conditions will assure the safety of others or the
community if [he] were released pending trial.” Id. at 60-61. And “[b]ecause [he] found
that the [g]overnment [had] established . . . Hinkle’s danger to the community by clear
and convincing evidence, [Judge Sinatra did] not [need to] decide whether [Hinkle’s]
release would pose a risk of flight.” Id. at 61.
On August 1, 2024, Hinkle moved for release from custody. Docket Item 174.
He argued (1) that Judge McCarthy’s July 29 sanctions order “constitute[d] a substantial
change in circumstances that would warrant his immediate release from custody” and
(2) that his common law wife, Dillon Anderson, was “willing to put up the family home to
guarantee . . . Hinkle’s presence in court.” Docket Item 174-1 at ¶¶ 5-6.
Judge McCarthy ordered Hinkle released on conditions, including home
incarceration, Anderson’s posting the equity in the family home, and Hinkle’s son
executing a $50,000 signature bond. See Docket Item 252 at 13-15. Judge McCarthy
found that “the two forms of security that [he had] requested [we]re sufficient to
reasonably assure [him] that, if released, [Hinkle would] not pose a risk of flight or
danger to the community.” Id. at 19. Judge McCarthy added that Hinkle “knows what
it’s like to be in custody” and that Judge McCarthy was “sure [Hinkle did not] want to go
back there.” Id.
This Court reviews Judge McCarthy’s release order de novo. See United States
v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d. Cir. 1985). Thus, the narrow question before this Court is
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 6

4
whether there is any new information that would change Judge Sinatra’s decision.3 For
the reasons that follow, this Court finds that there is not.
DISCUSSION
The four factors that the Court must consider when deciding whether a defendant
should be released pending trial under the Bail Reform Act are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether
the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a [f]ederal
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
[f]ederal, [s]tate, 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.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). In addition to the arguments he made before Judge McCarthy,
Hinkle argues that the weight of the evidence has shifted in his favor based on materials
3 As this Court made clear at oral argument, neither side gets a second bite at
the apple on decisions that a prior judge in a case has made. In other words, the
question is not what this Court would do in the first instance; rather, it is what this Court
thinks Judge Sinatra likely would have done based on any purportedly new information
given the decision that he issued earlier in the case.
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 6

5
provided in discovery, including the full law enforcement interview of Gogolack. See
Docket Item 299 at 3-10. Hinkle further argues that his history and characteristics have
changed based on his “exemplary behavior” during his pretrial detention. Docket Item
299 at 10. This Court finds that neither of these changes would have affected Judge
Sinatra’s decision.
First, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Gogolack interview and
other discovery undermines the government’s accusations that Hinkle was involved in
Quinn’s death, those allegations were not central to Judge Sinatra’s decision. See
Docket Item 217 at 60 (“The Crystal Quinn proffers are worth considering, even if they
are not independently sufficient to detain the defendant, but they are not irrelevant, for
sure.” (emphasis added)); id. (“And I’m considering the -- for what it is worth, the -- what
I’ve heard here today regarding the death of Crystal Quinn and the statement about her
having a bounty on her life, which is corroborated by someone other than . . .
Gogolack.” (emphasis added)). In particular, regarding danger, Judge Sinatra relied on
“the quantities of [marijuana] plants and firearms”; “the placement of [the] weapons”;
Hinkle’s dangerous “conduct when the agents were clearing his house”; and “the
proffers regarding the marijuana, the text messages, the sales, . . . and the firearms in
conjunction with the marijuana sales.” Id. at 59-60. This Court finds that that the new
information in the Gogolack interview would not have changed Judge Sinatra’s calculus,
which was affirmed by the Second Circuit.
Second, Hinkle’s outstanding behavior while incarcerated—while indeed
commendable—does not tip the scales. More specifically, this Court finds that this
recent step in the right direction does not outweigh the considerations that led to Judge
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 5 of 6

6
Sinatra’s decision, including Hinkle’s “questionable employment situation,” his “criminal
history,” his “mental health and . . . substance abuse,” and his “December . . . 2021
threat to kill his wife and himself.” See id.
Finally, while the security that Anderson and Hinkle’s son put forward might well
mitigate risk of flight, it does not alter the dangerousness calculation—on which Judge
Sinatra’s decision ultimately rested. See United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 543 (2d
Cir. 1995) (stating that a substantial bond “would have deterred flight, not danger”);
United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991) (“The bail package offered
by [the defendant], although it may reasonably assure [his] appearance . . . at trial, will
not reasonably assure the safety of the community.”). Indeed, Judge Sinatra did not
even reach the issue of whether Hinkle was a flight risk. See Docket Item 217-2 at 61.
So the offer of security would not and does not change the calculus.
CONCLUSION
For all those reasons, the government’s motion to revoke Judge McCarthy’s
release order is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	December 13, 2024
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cr-00099-EAW Document 323 Filed 12/13/24 Page 6 of 6