Information — United States v. David Staveley (Dkt. 12, D.R.I. No. 1:20-cr-00074)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island · No. 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA · Doc. 12 · 2020-05-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
 
v. 
DAVID ADLER STAVELEY, a/k/a 
“Kurt Sanborn,” a/k/a “David 
Sanborn”                         
Case No. 1:20-MJ-00034-LDA 
 
FILED UNDER SEAL 
 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF  
RELEASE AND ORDER OF DETENTION  
 
The government respectfully requests that the Court revoke defendant David 
Staveley’s (“Staveley”) $10,000 unsecured bond and detain him pending trial in this 
matter.  The government seeks this relief because defendant violated the conditions of 
release set by this Court a mere three days after his arrest by traveling to Connecticut 
without permission to do so. The purpose of defendant’s unauthorized trip to 
Connecticut was to meet with, harass and intimidate a woman with whom he had a 
brief relationship. Defendant has a long history of harassing and threatening behavior 
toward women and poses a danger to the community. Defendant is also a risk of flight 
due to the strength of evidence in this case and the likelihood that he is facing a 
significant sentence of incarceration. As both a danger to the community and a risk of 
flight, defendant should be detained pre-trial. The Government respectfully requests 
that the Court issue a warrant for Staveley to be arrested for the violation of a condition 
of his pretrial release. 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 68

2
Defendant’s Violation of Condition of Release 
Following defendant’s initial appearance on May 5, 2020, the Court set 
conditions of release which, among other things, prohibited defendant from traveling 
outside the State of Massachusetts (or Rhode Island, for court appearances or to meet 
with counsel) without first obtaining permission of the Probation Department or the 
Court. The Court was very clear in expressing to defendant that it viewed the alleged 
conduct underlying this case as very serious and that it would not tolerate any 
violations of the release conditions set by the Court.  Less than three days later, 
defendant blatantly violated the conditions of release by travelling without 
authorization to Connecticut where he engaged in harassing and intimidating behavior 
toward C.P., defendant’s former girlfriend. 
On May 8, 2020, C.P. contacted an FBI agent and stated that she had been dating 
Staveley for a short period of time prior to his arrest in this case on May 5, 2020. C.P. 
did not know much about Staveley and believed him to be an “Intelligence Officer” 
with the United States Navy. Upon learning of Staveley’s arrest, C.P. found information 
online concerning his prior arrests, including articles concerning Staveley’s harassment 
of other women. C.P. informed Staveley that she did not want to see him anymore and 
Staveley responded with a barrage of telephone calls and text messages, indicating his 
desire to see her. C.P. was concerned for her safety and contacted the FBI about the 
alarming number of calls and text messages she was receiving from Staveley. The FBI 
advised C.P. to contact local law enforcement for her safety. 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 69

3
At approximately 1:20 p.m. on May 8, 2020, C.P. again contacted the FBI agent. 
C.P. stated that shortly after returning from a walk with her mother in their 
neighborhood in Connecticut, Staveley arrived at her home and asked her how her 
walk with her mother had been. C.P. felt concerned and threatened by this question as 
it suggested both that defendant had been watching her as she walked with her mother 
and that defendant wanted her to know that he was watching her. C.P. told Staveley 
that she had been in touch with a law enforcement official about his conduct toward her 
after which Staveley appeared to be in a rush to leave. As Staveley was leaving, C.P. 
told him that she would pray for him. Staveley responded by stating: “No, you need to 
pray for them.” C.P. understood this to be a veiled threat against law enforcement 
officials. C.P. informed the FBI agent that she was afraid that Staveley would hurt her.   
Argument 
 
Defendant Staveley should be detained pretrial as he has demonstrated an 
unwillingness to abide by the Court’s directives, is a danger to the community and 
poses a risk of flight. “A person who has been released under section 3142  . . . and who 
has violated a condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of 
detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.”  18 U.S.C. § 3148(a).  Upon motion 
of the government, the judicial officer shall enter an order for revocation and detention, 
if after a hearing, the judicial officer:   
(1) finds that there is-- 
(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a 
Federal, State, or local crime while on release; or 
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any 
other condition of release; and 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 70

4
(2) finds that-- 
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, 
there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that 
will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the 
safety of any other person or the community; or 
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination 
of conditions of release. 
 
Id. 
 
“A finding of probable cause pursuant to the first prong gives rise to a rebuttable 
presumption that no conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the 
safety of the community under the second prong.”  United States v. Gennaco, 834 
F.Supp.2d 38, 40 (D.Mass. 2011) (upholding the revocation of the defendant’s bond 
based upon the judicial officer’s finding that there was probable cause to believe the 
defendant committed another crime while on pre-trial release, that the defendant 
violated the travel restriction, and the defendant violated the no-contact order with 
respect to victims or potential victims).  The defendant may rebut the presumption, but 
even if he produces some evidence in rebuttal, the presumption “‘retains evidentiary 
weight’” and may be used by the government in support of its motion for detention.  Id. 
 
In this case, defendant is unable to rebut the presumption of detention created by 
his violation of the order setting his conditions of release. First and foremost, by so 
quickly and deliberately flouting the Court’s conditions, defendant has made clear that 
he cannot be trusted to abide by those conditions. This is a very serious case, involving 
the attempted fraud on a government program designed to help small businesses and 
its employees in a time of crisis. The Court very clearly emphasized to defendant the 
seriousness with which it views this case. Although the Court denied the Government’s 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 71

5
recommendation for home detention, the Court made crystal clear to defendant that it 
would not tolerate any violations of the conditions of release it set. This warning was 
apparently disregarded by defendant when, less than three days later, he traveled 
without permission of the Probation Department or the Court to travel to Connecticut. 
There is nothing in defendant’s long criminal history that suggests that he would 
comply with other conditions of release this Court could set. 
 
Second, and most importantly, this is not a circumstance in which a defendant 
traveled without permission for an innocuous reason. Staveley traveled to Connecticut 
in order to harass and intimidate a former girlfriend, C.P., who had informed defendant 
that she did not wish to see him again. Defendant proceeded to barrage C.P. with text 
messages and phone calls and ultimately showed up at her house uninvited. Once 
there, defendant made sure to let C.P. know that he was watching her and her mother 
while they were walking. Defendant’s conduct left C.P. feeling harassed, intimidated 
and in fear for her safety. 
 
Defendant’s harassment of C.P. is not an isolated event. In fact, his criminal 
record shows that he engaged in harassing and threatening conduct with at least four 
other women beforehand.   On June 4, 2014, defendant was arrested by the Warwick 
Police Department on charges of Felony Stalking/Harassment and Violation of a 
Protection Order. On August 28, 2014, defendant was again arrested by the Warwick 
Police Department, this time for Willful Trespass and Violation of a Protective Order. In 
October 2014, defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to the Willful Trespass charge 
and was sentenced to 6 months of probation; defendant was also ordered to have no 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 72

6
contact with a victim, an East Greenwich, RI woman named M.W.  
 
On November 29, 2016, defendant was arrested by the Wayland, MA police for 
criminal harassment. According to press reports at the time, defendant was arrested 
after engaging in a series of escalating and harassing conduct toward a school principal 
in Wayland, MA, including bombarding this victim with text messages and following 
her to a restaurant. This behavior culminated in defendant putting flyers on the 
windshields of cars parked at Wayland Town Hall and at the local high school, stating 
that the woman consumes large amounts of alcohol and was promiscuous. Defendant 
was placed on supervised probation in November 2018 and the case was ultimately 
dismissed in December 2019. Records from the State of Massachusetts further reveal 
that three different women, S.H., C.B. and C.H., filed civil restraining orders against 
defendant from 2016-2018. 
 
Defendant has a long history of engaging in threatening and harassing behavior 
toward women. In fact, the only periods in which such conduct does not seem to occur 
are when he is in federal custody, serving time for his various fraud schemes. 
Defendant’s recent harassment of C.P. in Connecticut is just the latest in a long line of 
threatening, intimidating and harassing behavior defendant exhibits toward women. 
Defendant is a danger to the community and should be held pretrial.1  
1 In addition to the danger defendant poses to women he encounters, he also poses an 
economic danger to the community. This case is the third time in a little more than a 
decade that defendant has been charged federally with committing fraud. In 2009, he 
was convicted of wire fraud in the District of New Hampshire and was sentenced to 30 
months of imprisonment. Shortly after the completion of that sentence, Staveley (then 
Kurt Sanborn) resumed his fraudulent activities and was arrested in 2013 in the District 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 73

7
  
Defendant Staveley also poses a substantial risk of flight. The evidence in this 
case is overwhelming as defendant sought SBA guaranteed loans for three separate 
restaurants, including one that he did not own, one that was not opened since 2018 and 
a third that closed before the current shutdown due to loss of a liquor license. In 
addition, defendant and his co-conspirator communicated via email about creating 
fictitious documents to submit in support of their loan applications. On the fraud 
charges alone, defendant is facing an approximate guideline range of 37-46 months 
imprisonment. In addition, he is facing a mandatory consecutive sentence of two years 
imprisonment for committing Aggravated Identity Theft for using his brother’s identity 
information without his consent in furtherance of the fraud scheme. In all, defendant is 
facing an approximate sentence of 5-6 years of imprisonment. 
 
Defendant is clearly an intelligent man adept at deceiving others. He changed his 
name following his prior federal convictions, making it difficult for those he encounters 
to learn of his criminal history. He commits fraud by posing as his brother and using his 
brother’s social security number and date of birth as his own. Even now, he continues to 
deceive people he encounters, including informing his most recent girlfriend that he is 
an Intelligence Officer with the United States Navy. Defendant has the incentive to flee 
of New Hampshire on charges of wire, mail and bank fraud. In December 2015, 
defendant pled guilty to these charges and was ultimately sentenced to 27 months of 
imprisonment. Now, a short while after completing this sentence, he is charged with 
attempting to defraud the Small Business Administration during a national crisis. 
Defendant’s unrelenting commission of economic crimes makes him an economic 
danger to the community. See, e.g., United States v. Rocco DeSimone, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
28793 at *5-6 (D.R.I.) (Almond, J.) (holding that economic crimes may constitute a 
“danger to the community” under the Bail Reform Act).
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 74

8
and the ability to do so. He is a risk of flight and should be detained pretrial. 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion  
 
Defendant Staveley was provided with clear instructions by the Court that he 
was not to travel outside the Districts of Massachusetts or Rhode Island without the 
prior consent of the Probation Department or the Court. Less than three days later, 
defendant did exactly that, traveling to Connecticut to further harass and intimidate his 
former girlfriend. Defendant’s harassing conduct toward this woman was just the latest 
in a long series of similar stalking and harassing incidents with other women that have 
taken place since 2014. Defendant is a danger to the community and a risk of flight. The 
Government requests that the Court issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant on 
the charge of violating a condition of his pretrial release. The Court should revoke the 
defendant’s unsecured bond and order him detained pending trial.  There is ample 
evidence to prove that he violated conditions of release and he has demonstrated that 
he is “unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.”  18 
U.S.C. § 3148(a). 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
 
United States Attorney’s Office  
 
50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Floor 
 
Providence, RI 02903 
 
 
 
 
 
 
401-709-5000 (tel) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
401-709-5001 (fax) 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 75

9
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 
 
 
On this 9th day of May, 2020, I caused the within Motion for Revocation of 
Release to be filed electronically and it is available for viewing and downloading from 
the ECF system. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
U.S. Attorney's Office 
50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th FL 
Providence, RI 02903 
Tel (401) 709-5000 
Fax (401) 709-5001 
Email:  Lee.Vilker@usdoj.gov 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 12   Filed 05/11/20   Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 76

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.12.0.pdf

Size

122,129 bytes

SHA-256

19b027180fa4b264161a526c4570d682dab4c6a7db0b591235b46df0131bd6b1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.12.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)