Government’s Response to Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order — United States v. Reazuddin (Dkt. 25, W.D. Mo.)

Summary

The Government's Response to Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Detention Order in United States of America v. Mirza Reazuddin, Case No. 23-00067-01-CR-W-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed August 3, 2023. The United States opposes the defendant's appeal and request for release (Doc. 22), arguing that he is a serious risk of flight and of obstructing justice. It states that on April 25, 2023 Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard ordered detention pending trial, citing prior criminal history, prior attempts to evade law enforcement and use of aliases or false documents. It notes that the defendant is charged with PPP loan fraud, and it is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Paul S. Becker.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                               WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                    WESTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff,

            v.                                              Case No. 23-00067-01-CR-W-BP

 MIRZA REAZUDDIN,

                                      Defendant.

                           GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
                        OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER

        The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, submits this

response to the defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order and Request for

Immediate Release with Conditions. (Doc. 22.) The Government opposes the defendant’s release

as the defendant is a serious risk of flight and a serious risk that he would obstruct or attempt to

obstruct justice in this case.

        I.          Order of Detention

        On April 25, 2023, Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard entered an order of detention

pending trial finding “by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance as required.” (D.E. 3) 1

The Court also noted reasons for detention included (1) prior criminal history; (2) prior attempts

to evade law enforcement; and (3) use of aliases or false documents. The Court added the following

as other reasons or further explanation:

        Defendant is charged with PPP loan fraud. He has a prior conviction for providing a false
        identification to an officer and a history of fleeing from officers who came to his home
        in response to a domestic violence incident. There is an active warrant for his arrest for

        1
            Docket Entry for Rule 5(C)(3) documents received from the Northern District of Georgia.




                 Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 6

       simple assault and when officers attempted to arrest him today, he was found hiding in the
       trunk of a car. He has substantial assets and proceeds of fraud have not been recovered.

       The defendant filed a motion in this district for a review of the detention order.

The defendant argued that he was not a serious risk of flight or a risk of obstruction. After a review

of the record, including a transcript of the detention hearing, the Magistrate Judge in this District

issued an order finding “by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of

conditions of release will assure the defendant’s appearance as required.” (D.E. 19.)

       On July 12, 2023, the defendant filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s detention order

once again arguing that he is not a risk of flight. United States opposes the defendant’s request for

release as he has continued to assert false information to the court and demonstrated that he is a

significant risk of flight. De novo review is the proper standard for the district court to apply in

reviewing a magistrate’s order of pretrial release. United States v. Adipietro, 773 F. Supp. 1270,

1271 (W.D. MO 1991.)

       II.      Serious Risk of Flight

   The defendant asserts, as he did in the original motion to the magistrate judge, that he “is a

citizen of the United States and has lived in Missouri since 2012.” This contention is simply not

true. First, the defendant was arrested in Georgia. The defendant purchased the Lawrenceville,

Georgia, house in August 2020 using PPP loan funds. The defendant had also obtained a Georgia

driver’s license.

   Second, a review of the defendant’s immigration records (A File) indicates he is not a citizen

of the United States and has used multiple names and dates of birth during his time in this country.

The name on the immigration file is Mirza Riaz Uddin with the date of birth of 09/17/1957. The

date of birth on the indictment is 07/09/1957. A copy of an Indian passport in the file lists the name


                                                  2


             Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 6

as Mirza Reazuddin with the 09/17/1957, date of birth. The documents in the file indicate that he

is not a US citizen but became a permanent resident in 1984. The defendant applied for

naturalization, but the application was denied due to abandonment in 2000.

       The evidence is clear that the defendant is not a citizen of the United States and not a

resident of the State of Missouri.

       Circumstances of the Arrest

       The defendant again argues that his detention was based on some inference that he was

disguising himself by wearing a hairpiece. A review of the transcript from the Georgia detention

hearing fails to support that contention. The focus of the hearing was the defendant being found

hiding in the trunk of a car after an hour-long search of his home. Additionally, the court inquired

about the circumstances of his fleeing from police on a domestic violence incident in Johnson

County, Kansas.

       On April 25, 2023, Special Agents with the IRS-CI executed an arrest warrant for

the defendant at his residence in Lawrenceville, Georgia. The arrest team arrived at

1925 Severbrooke Pl., Lawrenceville, Georgia, at approximately 6:00 AM. The arrest team was

comprised of eight IRS-CI Special Agents and two Gwinnett County Police Officers with two

marked cars on the street with emergency lights on. The arrest team knocked and announced at the

front door for approximately 15 minutes before withdrawing from the area.

       The case agent attempted to contact the defendant on his cell phone multiple times but there

was no answer. The arrest team obtained a key for the residence and returned at approximately

8:15 AM. The arrest team knocked and announced at the front door, but there was no answer. The

arrest team moved through the main floor, both garages, second floor, basement, crawl space, and

attic of the home in search of the defendant. The arrest team loudly announced “police” throughout

                                                 3


           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 3 of 6

the search and verbally instructed anyone in the home to come out and show themselves to the

arrest team. After approximately an hour, the team searched a third garage and observed two cars

parked in the area. The team searched the trunk of a Chrysler sedan and found the defendant in the

trunk wearing pants, shirt, and shoes. He was holding two cell phones when found inside the trunk.

        In his appeal, the defendant again states that “he had no idea federal agents were in

pursuit, and certainly did not concoct a plan to fool them (with the hairpiece). . . . A similar

conclusion was reached when he was supposedly found “hiding” in the trunk of his car. Again,

when the agents went to arrest him, they arrived completely by surprise. He had been in the back

of his car to push the back seat in to have more room to place a television in the trunk.” (D.E. 22

at 7.) According to the agents, there was no TV in the trunk, vehicle, or garage area where the

defendant was found.

        The defendant is a serious risk of flight and there are no conditions or combination of

conditions that can assure the court of his appearance for future hearings in this case. The

defendant is not a citizen and falsely claims that he was born in this country. Further, as exhibited

by the defendant’s actions at the time of his arrest, he appears willing to take extreme measures to

avoid facing the charges in this case. Additionally, prior to his arrest in this case, there were

outstanding warrants from Johnson County, Kansas, and he did not take any steps to appear in that

jurisdiction.

        III.    Serious Risk of Obstruction

        As noted in the defendant’s appeal, the defendant is in the process of a divorce from his

current spouse. The spouse is listed as a principal in a corporation which received a Paycheck

Protection Program (PPP) loan which is still under investigation in this case. It is anticipated that

the spouse may be a witness in this case. There are outstanding charges against the defendant in

                                                 4


           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 4 of 6

the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, for domestic assault and making criminal threats

against his spouse. (Case Nos. 22DV01809 & 23DV00582.) In the threat case, it is alleged that the

defendant threatened to kill his spouse and children with an AK-47.

       IV.     Bond Factors

       The factors to be considered by the Court in determining whether release will assure the

presence of the defendant and the safety of the community 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 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.

       The indictment in this case charges the defendant with wire fraud and money laundering.

The Government submits that the evidence is strong as the defendant obtained multiple Paycheck

Protection Program loans for a business that he no longer owned or operated. In these two loans,

the defendant fraudulently obtained $804,100.

       The defendant no longer has ties to the Kansas City area and has proposed a third-party

custodian who resides in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant has not provided any

information regarding this third-party custodian. At the time of his arrest in Georgia, the defendant

had two outstanding warrants for serious charges in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas.

                                                 5


           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 5 of 6

Finally, as outlined above, it appears from the charges in Johnson County that the defendant would

be a danger to others in the community.

       All these factors support the detention order entered by the Magistrate Judge. The

Government opposes the defendant’s motion for release on bond in this case and requests that the

court deny the defendant’s motion for release.

                                                      Respectfully submitted,

                                                      Teresa A. Moore
                                                      United States Attorney

                                             By       /s/ Paul S. Becker

                                                      Paul S. Becker
                                                      Assistant United States Attorney
                                                      Fraud and Corruption Unit

                                                      Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse
                                                      400 East 9th Street, Fifth Floor
                                                      Kansas City, Missouri 64106
                                                      Telephone: (816) 426-3122

                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on August 3,
2023, to the CM-ECF system of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri for electronic delivery to all counsel of record.

                                                      /s/ Paul S. Becker

                                                      Paul S. Becker
                                                      Assistant United States Attorney




                                                  6


          Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 25 Filed 08/03/23 Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mowd.168878.25.0.pdf

Size

191,271 bytes

SHA-256

64ab0a5d908b2d9e1790e82e3c85015df673ed5a119eaf764931152768e81c03

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.168878.25.0.pdf

Original

archive.org