Opinion and Order — United States v. Asante (Dkt. 216, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An opinion and order of U.S. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura in United States v. Robert K. Asante, No. 2:20-cr-94, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, filed June 8, 2022 as Doc 216 after a bond revocation hearing that day. It recounts that Asante was released on his own recognizance on March 4, 2020 with conditions including surrender of his passport, location monitoring and a curfew, and that the court denied three motions to remove monitoring, citing his travel history and assets and family ties in Ghana. On June 1, 2022 the government filed an emergency motion to revoke release (ECF No. 205) after learning he had booked an international flight, and he was arrested June 2, 2022. The court revokes the bond and orders him detained.

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: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 216 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                  EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                                         Civil Action 2:20-cr-94
                                                         Judge Sarah D. Morrison
       v.                                                Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura


ROBERT K. ASANTE.


                                    OPINION AND ORDER

       This matter came before the Court for a bond revocation hearing on June 8, 2022. As the

record in this case reveals, Defendant Robert K. Asante appeared before the Court for his initial

appearance on March 4, 2020, and was released on his own recognizance under Pretrial Services

supervision with various conditions of release, including that he surrender an passport and not

obtain another passport or other international travel document. (ECF No. 7.) In addition, Mr.

Asante was subject to electronic location monitoring and placed on a curfew. (Id.) Thereafter, Mr.

Asante filed three motions to modify his conditions of relief, requesting that his location

monitoring be removed. The Court denied all three motions, most recently explaining as follows:

       The Court continues to believe that Mr. Asante is a flight risk based on his travel
       history, his significant financial assets and family ties in Ghana, his lack of
       financial assets and family ties in the United States, and the steep penalties he faces
       if he is convicted of the crime charged.

(ECF No. 181 at PAGEID # 892.)

       On June 1, 2022, the Government filed an Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Revoke

Defendant’s Release and for an Order of Detention (ECF No. 205) after it learned that Mr. Asante

booked an international flight. The Court granted the Government’s Motion and issued an arrest

Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 216 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>




warrant. (ECF Nos. 205 and 206.) Mr. Asante was arrested on June 2, 2022.

       During the bond revocation hearing, the Government proffered two voice recordings

demonstrating that Mr. Asante booked a flight to Canada, scheduled to depart from Columbus,

Ohio on June 2, 2022. The Government also proffered the airline confirmation receipts, sent to

Mr. Asante’s email address. Defense counsel proffered an email from MedFirst Consulting,

dated March 2, 2022, that showed that Mr. Asante had been hired to perform work for Medfirst

Consulting “in Ontario,” with travel to Canada on June 1, 2022, and a June 3, 2022 start date. Mr.

Asante testified during the hearing and acknowledged that he had accepted a position with

MedFirst Consulting that required him to travel and that he did, in fact, book a flight to Canada.

Mr. Asante further acknowledged that he did not inform his Pretrial Services officer that he had

entered into this employment contract or that he had booked an international flight. Mr. Asante

argued that he had no intention of traveling to Canada and that he planned to cancel his June 1

flight to Canada on June 1, the day he was arrested. Defense counsel argued that Mr. Asante

agreed to the job in Ontario, Canada to preserve his relationship with MedFirst Consulting with the

hopes that MedFirst Consulting would offer him other positions that could be performed remotely.

                                                 I.

       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148, a person who has been released on bond under 18 U.S.C. §

3142 and has violated a condition of his or her release is subject to having bond revoked. Section

3148(b) provides as follows:

       The judicial officer shall enter an order of 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,

                                                 2

Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 216 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>




                           State, or local crime while on release; or

                   (B)     clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other
                           condition of release; and

       (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.

       If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal,
       State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of
       conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other
       person or the community. . . .

18 U.S.C. § 3148(b).

       In addition, where a defendant poses a serious risk of flight, upon the Government’s

motion or the judicial officer’s own motion, the Court may hold a hearing to determine whether

any conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of such person. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).

                                                    II.

       The undersigned finds that the evidence adduced at the revocation hearing constitutes clear

and convincing evidence that Mr. Asante violated conditions of his release. Regardless, the

evidence proffered, together with the evidence adduced during Mr. Asante’s first bond hearing,

establishes that he poses a serious risk of flight such that the Court must proceed to consider

whether the Court could impose conditions that would reasonably assure Mr. Asante’s appearance

at future Court proceedings. In making this finding, the undersigned finds Mr. Asante’s

testimony to lack credibility. Mr. Asante knew when he applied for and accepted the position with


                                                     3

Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 216 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>




MedFirst Consulting that it would require international travel. In fact, Mr. Asante booked an

international flight to Canada as evidenced by his own admissions, the voice recordings, and the

confirmation emails he received. Mr. Asante did not inform his Pretrial Services Officer that he

entered into a contract that required him to work in Canada or that he booked a flight to Canada.

Nor did Mr. Asante cancel his flight to Canada or otherwise inform MedFirst Consulting that he

would not be reporting to work for the position he had accepted. These facts undermine Defense

counsel’s arguments that Mr. Asante accepted the position and booked an international flight

simply to preserve his relationship with MedFirst Consulting.

       Mr. Asante’s actions, together with the information Judge Morrison highlighted in denying

his third request to remove location monitoring and the facts highlighted in the Government’s

Emergency Motion, lead the undersigned to conclude that there are no conditions of release that

the Court could impose that would reasonably assure his appearance at future Court proceedings.

Under these circumstances, revocation of Mr. Asante’s release is warranted.

                                               III.

       For the reasons set forth above, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the bond

previously set in this matter is REVOKED and that Mr. Asante is ORDERED DETAINED until

further Order of this Court.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.


                                                       /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
                                                      CHELSEY M. VASCURA
                                                      UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE




                                                4

File and source

File

216-opinion-and-order.pdf

Size

213,766 bytes

SHA-256

2a6205cf51b9704c78a9b0dfc6b62e2151185faaa9ba772e145d99632301d5d9

Our copy

216-opinion-and-order.pdf