Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond — United States v. Boyce (Dkt. 25, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An order of Judge Susan J. Dlott in United States v. Willie Boyce, No. 1:23-cr-00010-SJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, filed September 28, 2023 as Doc 25. It denies Boyce's Pro Se Motion for Bond (Doc. 21) and his attorney's Motion for Bond (Doc. 22), which the government opposed (Doc. 23). The order recounts that Boyce was indicted on four counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 over Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, and that days later he was sentenced in Hamilton County, Ohio to nine months for identity fraud and tampering with records. The court finds he has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he is unlikely to flee or pose a danger if released.

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: 1:23-cr-00010-SJD Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/23 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 131




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                     WESTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Case No. I:23-cr-10
        Plaintiff,

   V.                                              Judge Susan J. Dlott

WILLIE BOYCE,                                      ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
                                                    MOTION FOR BOND
        Defendant.



         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Willie Boyce's Pro Se Motion for Bond

(Doc. 21)and his attorney's Motion for Bond (Doc. 22), which the Government opposes(Doc.

23). For the reasons set forth below. Defendant's Motion will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND


         On February 1,2023,Boyce was indicted on four counts of wire fraud,in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1343, stemming from fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP")

loans administered by the Small Business Administration("SBA"). (Doc. 1.) Days later, on

February 8,2023, Boyce was sentenced in Hamilton County, Ohio to a term of nine months of

imprisonment for identity fraud and tampering with records. (Presentence Report"PSR",T|57.)

The same day, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad

Prosequendum,in which the Court ordered that Boyce be brought to federal court for an initial

appearance on the indictment and that he "shall be retained for forthcoming court proceedings

until this case is concluded." (Doc.6 at PagelD 20.)

         On February 9,2023, Boyce made his initial appearance in this Court. (Feb. 9,2023

Minute Entry.) Because Boyce was serving a state sentence, the issue of detention was

determined to be moot, and Boyce was ordered detained pending trial. {Id.) As to detention, the

    Case: 1:23-cr-00010-SJD Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/23 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 132




Magistrate Judge stated in her Order of Detention Pending Trial that "[djefense counsel indicated

bond was moot as the defendant is not currently eligible for release due to pending matters in

another case, to wit, the defendant is being detained on state court charges." (Doc. 11 at PagelD

26.) Boyce entered into a Plea Agreement on March 17,20223 in which he agreed to plead

guilty to Count 1 ofthe Indictment. (Doc. 30.) Sentencing in this matter is scheduled for

October 11,2023. (Doc. 20.)

       On August 20,2023, Boyce filed a pro se request to be released on bond, and his attorney

supplemented his request by filing a sealed Motion for Bond on September 13,2023. (Docs. 21,

22.) The Government opposes the request. (Doc. 23.) For the reasons that follow, Boyce's

Motion will be DENIED.


II. LAW AND ANALYSIS


       A. Law


       18 U.S.C. § 3143 governs release or detention of a defendant pending sentencing, as in

this case. Pursuant to § 3143(a)(1),"the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been

found guilty ofan offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution ofsentence... 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 ofany other person or the community ifreleased

under section 3142(b) or (c)."

       B. Analysis

       Boyce argues that he should be released on bond because he is not a danger to the

community or a flight risk. He emphasizes the non-violent nature ofhis fraud offense. His

attorney, supplementing his pro se motion, argues that granting Boyce bond would allow him to

be returned to state custody to resolve the detainer lodged against him and then to reside with his

    Case: 1:23-cr-00010-SJD Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/23 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 133




children and girlfriend among completion of his 9-month state sentence prior to self-reporting for

his federal sentencing hearing. Counsel acknowledges that the sentencing in this case would

need to be postponed as a result. Defense counsel also argues that Boyce has mitigating history

and characteristics and asserts that he has disassociated from the negative influences in his life.

       The Government supports detention due to the circumstances ofthe crime to which

Boyce pled guilty and his criminal history, including the fact that the instant offense was

committed while Boyce was still under a sentence for drug trafficking. (Doc. 23.) Specifically,

pursuant to the Statement ofFacts to which he admitted, upon release from a four-year state

prison sentence in March 2021, Boyce submitted two fraudulent applications for PPP loans,

falsely claiming he was an independent contractor in the business oftaxi and ridesharing

services. (Doc. 14 at PagelD 35.) He claimed he was running this business during the time in

which he was actually serving a prison sentence. The PPP loans totaling over $40,000 were

deposited in Boyce's personal bank account in April and May,2021, and he made subsequent

purchases at Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Expedia, Hampton Inn, and Delta Airlines, spending all ofthe

money by May 18,2021. {Id.) Boyce's criminal history includes ten prior criminal convictions,

and, as noted, and he committed the instant offense while under a state sentence for drug

trafficking. (PSR,^48-61.) According to the PSR, Boyce's guideline range for this offense is

calculated at 33 to 41 months ofimprisonment. (PSR,^ 93.)

       Although he suffered from a traumatic childhood, Boyce has a lengthy criminal history

which concerns the Court he would be a danger to the community. Boyce's criminal history

includes drug trafficking, as well as failure to appear and the commissions of new crimes while

under court supervision. (PSR,^48-57.) Boyce's criminal history concerns the Court that

Boyce would be likely to not report for sentencing in this matter and/or commit new crimes

   Case: 1:23-cr-00010-SJD Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/23 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 134




while on bond. However, the Court cannot overlook that releasing Boyce on bond now

necessarily requires a lengthy continuance in this case to allow him to serve his state sentence,

pushing sentencing well into to next year. The Court strives to resolve its criminal cases as

expeditiously as possible, and this case is no exception. Thus, the Court docs not find

compelling the argument that Defendant should be released on bond. To do so would result in an

approximately nine-month delay while Boyce serves his slate sentence, is released, and then self-

reports for sentencing in this Court once released from state custody.

       In sum, although the Court is sympathetic of the unusual posture of this case involving

prison sentences in two jurisdictions, Boyce has not met his burden of establishing by clear and

convincing evidence that he is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person

or the community if released.

III.   CONCLUSION


       For the reasons discussed. Defendant's Motion for Bond (Docs. 21, 22)is DENIED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.




                                                     Judge Susan J. Dlo^
                                                     United States Distria Court

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.276503.25.0.pdf

Size

274,546 bytes

SHA-256

d87d829bbf932474203fdf64a6d90ef20a4589105ee0449bd5eac7566d0ee667

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.276503.25.0.pdf

Original

archive.org