Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond [ECF No. 34] — United States v. King (Dkt. 45, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

An opinion and order of U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker in United States v. Mykia King, Criminal Case No. 21-20738, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, dated and filed May 2, 2022 as ECF No. 45. It denies the defendant's motion for bond pending sentencing (ECF No. 34), with sentencing set for May 12, 2022. The order recounts that King pleaded guilty on January 18, 2022 under a Rule 11 Plea Agreement to wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and that Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti revoked her personal bond on August 17, 2021 (ECF No. 19). After a hearing on March 2, 2022, the court finds she has not overcome the presumption of detention and is not persuaded she is unlikely to pose a financial danger to the community.

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

Case 2:21-cr-20738-LVP-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.252 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 4




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                            SOUTHERN DIVISON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

            Plaintiff,
                                             Criminal Case No. 21-20738
v.                                           Honorable Linda V. Parker

MYKIA KING,

            Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND
                      [ECF NO. 34]

      On January 18, 2022, Defendant Mykia King pleaded guilty pursuant to a

Rule 11 Plea Agreement to wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and

aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. At the inception of

this case, Defendant voluntarily surrendered herself and was released on a personal

bond pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq. However,

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti subsequently revoked Defendant’s bond on

August 17, 2021. (ECF No. 19.)

      Defendant now asks the Court for release on bond pending sentencing,

which is currently scheduled for May 12, 2022. (ECF No. 34.) The Government

filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 36.) The Court also conducted a hearing

on the motion on March 2, 2022. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies

Defendant’s request.

Case 2:21-cr-20738-LVP-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.253 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 4




                                    Background

      On April 14, 2021, pursuant to a federal criminal complaint, an arrest

warrant was issued for Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant

surrendered and made her initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Patti.

Magistrate Judge Patti ordered a $10,000 personal bond and conditions of release

for Defendant.

      On August 9, 2021, the Court canceled Defendant’s bond upon a petition

from Pretrial Services. (ECF No. 14.) In its petition, Pretrial Services requested

that the Court cancel bond after learning that Defendant was arrested by both the

West Bloomfield Township and Farmington Hills Police Departments in Michigan.

(Id.) Pretrial Services first alleges that Defendant was untruthful about a July 16,

2021, arrest by West Bloomfield Township police. Pretrial Services also alleges

that on August 7, 2021, Defendant was arrested during a traffic stop and search,

which revealed several credit cards, gift cards, and personal identification of

another person in her possession. As a result, the Court held a bond hearing on

August 17, 2021, and as previously mentioned, Magistrate Judge Patti issued an

order revoking King’s bond. (See ECF No. 19.) Defendant filed an amended

motion for reconsideration of the bond decision, and the Government responded.

(ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Magistrate Judge Patti denied the motion, finding that even if




                                          2

Case 2:21-cr-20738-LVP-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.254 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 4




King had proposed alternative living situations, the Court still would have revoked

her bond and stood by that decision. (ECF No. 25 at Pg ID 94.)

                           Applicable Law and Analysis

      Release or detention pending sentencing is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3143.

The statute creates a presumption that the defendant will be detained unless “the

judicial officer 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 if

released . . ..” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). This is because “[o]nce guilt of a crime has

been established in a court of law, there is no reason to favor release pending

imposition of sentence or appeal. The conviction, in which the defendant’s guilt

has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, is presumably correct in law.”

United States v. Vance, 851 F.2d 166, 170 (6th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). The defendant bears the burden of overcoming the

presumption of detention. Id. at 169.

      The Defendant claims that the conditions at the Livingston County Jail are

poor and requests release on bond prior to sentencing to spend time with her family

and put her affairs in order. (ECF No. 34 at Pg ID 122.) Defendant proposes,

similar to her contention in the amended motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22),

that she will reside with either her father or her grandmother with their restrictions

on using electronic devices. (Id. at Pg ID 119-20.) The Government responds that



                                          3

Case 2:21-cr-20738-LVP-EAS ECF No. 45, PageID.255 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 4




King “has made no credible showing . . . that conditions of release, even if

stringent, would be sufficient to protect the community.” (ECF No. 36 at Pg ID

130.) Upon full review of the record and after hearing the parties’ arguments at the

bond hearing on March 2, 2022, the Court finds that the Defendant has not

satisfied her burden of overcoming the presumption of detention. The Court is not

persuaded that Defendant is not likely to pose a financial danger to individuals in

the community.

      Accordingly,

      IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for bond (ECF No. 34) is

DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                               s/ Linda V. Parker
                                               LINDA V. PARKER
                                               U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
 Dated: May 2, 2022




                                          4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mied.358691.45.0.pdf

Size

121,757 bytes

SHA-256

4d5a14315853a8ae22473dbfef07038c86a15731783b63ccaa34c0b1832b7382

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mied.358691.45.0.pdf

Original

archive.org