Order and Reasons — United States v. Alskiin Millican (Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 48)

Summary

An Order and Reasons in United States v. Alskiin Millican, Criminal Action No. 23-270, Document 48 (Case 2:23-cr-00270-SM-MBN), filed January 11, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It addresses the defendant's appeal of the December 15, 2023, order of detention pending trial by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld. The order recites a December 8, 2023 grand jury charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and one count of distribution of fentanyl, and reasons that the indictment triggers a presumption in favor of detention that the defendant did not rebut with evidence. It states that the order of detention is AFFIRMED and that the defendant is ordered detained pending trial.

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

Cite this document

“Order and Reasons — United States v. Alskiin Millican (Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 48).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-2-23-cr-00270-dkt-48-68eba05984/, SHA-256 9644fdfac329746c5aabc36cc352b002b23f3906f04842e2950e9f73d2453533.

Full text

Case 2:23-cr-00270-SM-MBN Document 48 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-270

ALSKIIN MILLICAN SECTION: “E” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendant Alskiin Millican’s appeal of the December 15, 2023,

order of detention pending trial (the “order”) 1 by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld.

Because the Court finds that Judge van Meerveld did not err in ordering Mr. Millican

detained pending trial, the order is AFFIRMED.2

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2023, Mr. Millican was charged by a federal grand jury with one

count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, and one count of distribution of

fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).3

On December 15, 2023, at Mr. Millican’s detention hearing, Judge van Meerveld

ordered him detained pending trial because Mr. Millican poses a risk of flight, may be a

danger to the community, and he failed to overcome the presumption in favor of

detention. Importantly, Judge van Meerveld wrote that there was “[p]robable cause” that

Mr. Millican committed the instance offense “by virtue of [the] indictment.”4

1 R. Doc. 30.
2 Mr. Millican is not entitled to have his detention hearing reopened upon this appeal, as no “information

exists that was not known to [Mr. Millican] at the time of the [prior] hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
3 R. Doc. 1.
4 Id. at p. 3.

1
Case 2:23-cr-00270-SM-MBN Document 48 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 4

On December 20, 2023, Mr. Millican filed an appeal of the order5 and a motion

seeking this Court’s expedited consideration of the appeal.6 In sum, Mr. Millican’s appeal

argues that Judge van Meerveld’s order of detention was based on insufficient evidence

of Mr. Millican’s danger to the community and flight risk. Mr. Millican argues that Judge

van Meerveld did not enter adequate findings to support her order.7

The Court granted Mr. Millican’s motion for expedited consideration and ordered

the government to file a memorandum in response to Mr. Millican’s appeal.8 The

government’s response was filed January 3, 2024.9 The government argues that because

Mr. Millican was indicted for a controlled substance offense, the law supports a

presumption of detention pending trial that Mr. Millican did not rebut.10

LAW AND ANALYSIS

By statute, a defendant is presumed to be a danger to the community and a flight

risk “if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe” the defendant

committed a controlled substance offense.11 This finding of probable cause does not need

to be made during the defendant’s detention hearing. For example, as in this case, a grand

jury’s indictment on certain controlled substance offenses establishes the probable cause

to believe the defendant committed the offense, triggering the presumption in favor of

pretrial detention.12 In other words, the grand jury’s indictment “conclusively

5 R. Doc. 32.
6 R. Doc. 33.
7 See generally R. Doc. 32.
8 R. Doc. 38.
9 R. Doc. 44.
10 See generally id.
1118 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3).
12 See United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[T]he presumption against pretrial

release arises when” the defendant is “indict[ed] under the Controlled Substances Act.”); see also, e.g.,
United States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 119 (3d Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702,
706 n.7 (7th Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1478–79 (11th Cir. 1985) (same).
2
Case 2:23-cr-00270-SM-MBN Document 48 Filed 01/11/24 Page 3 of 4

demonstrates that probable cause exists to implicate a defendant in a crime.” 13 Once this

presumption is made against the defendant, the burden to produce rebuttal evidence

shifts to him, though the ultimate burden of persuasion rests with the government. If a

defendant does not produce rebuttal evidence, however, the presumption remains

unchallenged, and becomes the finding upon which the judicial officer may enter an order

for pretrial detention.14

In this case, Mr. Millican is subject to the presumption in favor of pretrial detention

because of the underlying controlled substance offenses in the indictment.15 While he

“argued that there were mitigating factor favoring” pretrial bond,16 he did not present any

evidence of those mitigating factors at the detention hearing. Upon the application of the

presumption against him, it was his burden to produce rebuttal evidence, and he did not.

Contrary to what Mr. Millican argues in this appeal, the government did not need to offer

its own evidence, because the presumption was applied to Mr. Millican, and the burden

to produce rebuttal evidence was his.

Judge van Meerveld’s order for pretrial detention was not improper. The factors

considered by judicial officers when considering whether a defendant should be detained

pretrial include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, and in

particular, whether it involves a controlled substance; (2) the weight of evidence against

the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including his financial

resources and criminal history; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any

13 Suppa, 799 F.2d at 118.
14 See United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989)
15 For example, Mr. Millican is charged with distribution of fentanyl, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(B). Section 841(b)(1)(B), providing a maximum term of imprisonment of 40 years, is “an
offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years of more is prescribed in the Controlled
Substances Act.” Accordingly, the presumption described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) was applied to Mr.
Millican.
16 R. Doc. 32 at p. 2.

3
Case 2:23-cr-00270-SM-MBN Document 48 Filed 01/11/24 Page 4 of 4

person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release. 17 Having been

offered no rebuttal evidence, Judge van Meerveld was correct to find, on the basis of the

presumption and the facts underlying the indictment, that Mr. Millican was a flight risk

and danger to the community. The order of detention also makes clear that Judge van

Meerveld considered the dangerous nature of fentanyl, which Mr. Millican is accused of

distributing, and the large number of fentanyl pills involved (1,000); his prior criminal

history; and the fact that Mr. Millican is alleged to have distributed controlled substances

while living at home with his parents, whom he proposed as his third-party custodians.

On these facts, Judge van Meerveld ordered that Mr. Millican be detained pending trial.

CONCLUSION

Because of the nature of the alleged offenses, it is presumed that Mr. Millican

should be detained pending trial. He did not rebut the presumption that he is a flight risk

and danger to the community. Judge van Meerveld’s order was supported by sufficient

evidence. Accordingly;

The Order of Detention issued by Magistrate Judge van Meerveld is AFFIRMED.

Alskiin Millican is ordered detained pending trial.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of January, 2024.

_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

File and source

File: 48.pdf
Size: 120,512 bytes
SHA-256: 9644fdfac329746c5aabc36cc352b002b23f3906f04842e2950e9f73d2453533
Our copy: 48.pdf
Original: No public link identified.