Order Denying Motion for Release from Custody — United States v. Reazuddin (Dkt. 48, W.D. Mo.)

Summary

An Order Denying Motion for Release from Custody in United States of America v. Mirza Michael Reazuddin, Case No. 23-00067-01-CR-W-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, dated April 25, 2024 and signed by Chief Judge Beth Phillips. The order recounts that the defendant was indicted in April 2023 on four counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and seven counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, based on allegedly fraudulent PPP loan applications and receipt of more than $800,000. It notes that Magistrate Judges Russell G. Vineyard and Jill A. Morris ordered and kept him detained. Finding that he has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger, the court denies his motion (Doc. 45).

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 MICHAEL REAZUDDIN,                     )
                                             )
                         Defendant.          )

             ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

        Defendant was indicted in April 2023 on four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343 and seven counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. (Doc. 1.) These

charges were based on Defendant’s (1) allegedly fraudulent applications for loans under the

Paycheck Protection Program (“the PPP”), (2) receipt of more than $800,000 based on those

applications, (3) and subsequent use or disposition of those funds. The Indictment also included a

forfeiture allegation.

        Later in April 2023, Defendant was arrested in the Northern District of Georgia, where the

Honorable Russell G. Vineyard, United States Magistrate Judge for that District, granted the

Government’s Motion asking that Defendant be detained. In late May—after being brought back

to this District—Defendant filed a Motion for Detention Hearing and for reconsideration of Judge

Vineyard’s Detention Order. The Honorable Jill A. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge for

this District, denied the Motion; Defendant appealed, and the undersigned affirmed. (Doc. 26.)

        In February 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts IV and V; the Plea Agreement also

agrees to the forfeiture of certain funds and real property. (Doc. 42.) At the Change of Plea




           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 48 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 3

Hearing, Defendant requested release pending sentencing, but the Court directed that he file a

formal Motion and his detention was continued. Sentencing is set for June 26, 2024. (Doc. 44.)

           Now pending is Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Sentencing. The Court has

considered Defendant’s arguments and concludes his Motion, (Doc. 45), should be DENIED.

           A person who has been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing must be detained unless,

among other circumstances not relevant here exist, the Court “finds by clear and convincing

evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or

the community . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). Here, the Court discussed these issues when it denied

Defendant’s request for pretrial release and observed as follows:

           In December 2022, Defendant fled when officers came to his home in Kansas in
           response to a domestic violence call. With respect to this case, federal agents
           attempted to contact Defendant to serve the arrest warrant by, among other things,
           knocking on his door, and the circumstances suggest Defendant was aware the
           agents were there to arrest him. When he did not respond, agents went in the house,
           and eventually found him hiding in the trunk of his car. Defendant also has been
           arrested twice and convicted once for using false identification. These incidents
           are more than twenty years old, but they are relevant when considering whether
           Defendant is a flight risk—particularly given that the proceeds of the crime charged
           here have not been recovered.

(Doc. 26, pp. 2-3.)1

           Defendant points to his guilty plea and offer to cooperate with authorities in this case as

proof that he is no longer a risk of fleeing or otherwise obstructing proceedings. However, these

facts are not so unusual or compelling that they overcome Defendant’s past actions. Defendant

also points out that his access to funds has been diminished by virtue of the Government’s filing

of a lis pendens on the real property that is to be forfeited. Nonetheless, in light of Defendant’s

past efforts to avoid authorities, the Court is not persuaded that the lack of funds is enough to

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is not a flight risk. Moreover, the


1
    Unless otherwise indicated, all page numbers are those generated by the Court’ CM/ECF system.

                                                         2

              Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 48 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 3

Government represents (and Defendant does not dispute) that he faces charges in state court for

domestic assault and making criminal threats to his spouse, which is additionally significant

because she is a principal in the corporation which received the PPP loan.

       Defendant also raises concerns about his medical care and has supplied a letter from a

doctor. The doctor last saw Defendant nearly two years ago, and describes him as suffering from

hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other health issues—but the doctor only indicates Defendant

requires “continued testing in order to continue treatment of his cardiac issues” and does not

suggest Defendant currently requires urgent treatment. (Doc. 45-1.) Defendant is also critical of

the medical care provided to him at Leavenworth BOP, but, in his initial Motion, he provided no

reason to believe the facility is unable or unwilling to provide the medical care he needs. In his

Reply Suggestions, Defendant represents (1) the BOP’s medical records do not reflect all his

complaints, including complaints about chest pains, and (2) he is unable to make requests for

medical treatment in writing or via email, (Doc. 47, p. 3), but he did not provide any medical

records or other documentation confirming his assertions, and the Court is not persuaded

presentencing release is justified.

       Defendant argues that circumstances have changed, and he should be released pending

sentencing. However, the Court is not persuaded that they have changed to the point that the Court

can find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant is not a flight risk or a risk of danger

to others. Accordingly, his Motion, (Doc. 45), is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED.




                                                     /s/ Beth Phillips
                                                     BETH PHILLIPS, CHIEF JUDGE
DATE: April 25, 2024                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                                3

           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 48 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mowd.168878.48.0.pdf

Size

106,430 bytes

SHA-256

4acd5aea06e0c0e0993fbc7d1ac3ba53e27b69a3c2b3e0fd403fb912e027ff36

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.168878.48.0.pdf

Original

archive.org