Full text
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 253
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CRIMINAL NO. 2:25-00165
RODERICK TYRONE BOYD
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to revoke
the magistrate judge’s detention order. See ECF No. 22. For
the reasons expressed below, that motion is DENIED.
Background
On September 26, 2025, Boyd was charged in a two-count
indictment with distribution of fentanyl and/or aiding and
abetting same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley conducted a detention
hearing and, at the conclusion of that hearing, ordered
defendant detained pending trial. See ECF No. 22-1 at 22; see
also Order of Detention Pending Trial (ECF No. 18). The
Magistrate Judge found that defendant had not rebutted the
presumption of detention. See ECF No. 18 at 2. Magistrate Judge
Tinsley further found “by a preponderance of the evidence that
[Boyd] does pose a risk of non-appearance and [ ] by clear and
1 This Order is entered to correct an error in the first
paragraph of the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on
February 19, 2026. See ECF No. 39. The earlier order states
that it was the government’s motion challenging the detention
decision below when, in fact, it was defendant’s motion.
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 254
convincing evidence that the defendant does pose a danger to
others in the community.” ECF No. 22-1 at 22; see also ECF No.
18 at 3.
In explaining his decision, Magistrate Judge Tinsley
stated:
Well, the Court has considered the proffers and
arguments of counsel. And more importantly, the Court
has considered the factors pursuant to Title 18 United
States Code Section 3142(g). And in looking at those
factors, the Court makes the following findings: This
defendant is charged in Count One of the indictment
with aiding and abetting the distribution of a
quantity of fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled
substance; and distribution of fentanyl, a Schedule II
controlled substance in Count Two. These offenses are
10 year or more controlled substances offenses
pursuant to statute.
In looking at the history and characteristics of
this defendant, the defendant is 30 years of age and
was born in Dayton, Ohio. He has lived in the Dayton,
Ohio area his entire life. He completed the 11th
grade in high school and obtained a GED while
incarcerated in the Ohio Division of Corrections.
The defendant is currently unemployed, even
though counsel indicates he may be able to go back to
that job. But he does not appear to have any income or
assets as reported in the Pretrial Services Report.
He does not have any significant family ties or
community ties to the Southern District of West
Virginia.
In reviewing his criminal history, his criminal
history dates back to when he was 18 years of age. At
age 18, he was found guilty of criminal trespass in
Miamisburg, in Municipal Court in Miamisburg, Ohio, in
2014. And drug abuse/less than 100 grams in Dayton
2
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 255
Municipal Court in Dayton, Ohio in 2014. Both of
these convictions appear to be misdemeanors.
The Court would note in addition to both of these
charges in these cases, warrants were issued on three
occasions for the defendant for failure to appear.
And the defendant also has a history of several motor
vehicle infractions in the Southern District of Ohio.
At age 19, he was found guilty of burglary in
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in Dayton, Ohio,
in 2015. This offense appears to be a felony offense.
Also in 2014, at age 19, he was convicted of petty
larceny in Moraine Mayors Court in Moraine, Ohio, and
attempted domestic violence in Miamisburg Municipal
Court in Miamisburg, Ohio. Both convictions appear to
be misdemeanor offenses.
In 2018, he was found guilty of failure to comply
with order and/or signal of police officers, serious
physical harm/substantial risk, in Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court in Dayton, Ohio, which appears to
be a felony. And in 2024, he was found guilty of
reckless operation and speeding, which appear[] to be
misdemeanor offenses in Butler County Area III Court
in West Chester, Ohio.
So the Court has considered all of those matters.
The Court has also considered the proffers and
arguments of counsel. And in so doing, the Court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that this
defendant does pose a risk of non-appearance and finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
does pose a danger to others in the community.
Therefore, no conditions or combination of
conditions exist that would reasonably assure his
release.
ECF No. 22-1 at 19-22.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for revocation of the
magistrate judge's detention order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 256
3145(a). He argues that “given his longstanding ties in Dayton,
Ohio, he could be released on bond to the third party custody of
his partner, Rhapsodi Oliver, return to his employment with
Dmax, and have his activities supervised by the United States
Probation Office for the Southern District of Ohio.” ECF No. 29
at 2.2 The government continues to argue for detention.
Defendant has since pled guilty to both counts of the
indictment.
Analysis
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), “[a] defendant ordered
detained by a magistrate may seek de novo review in the district
court.” United States v. Clark, 865 F.2d 1433, 1436 (4th Cir.
1989). “‘When the district court acts on a motion to revoke or
amend a magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order, the
district court acts de novo and must make an independent
determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions of
release.’” United States v. Terry, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:24-cr-
00059, 2024 WL 3849772, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 16, 2024) (Volk,
J.) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 19 F. App’x 46, 48 (4th
Cir. 2001) (per curium) (unpublished)).
2 The motion itself contains a typographical error listing the
wrong partner and the wrong location. See ECF No. 22 at 1
(asking for release to third-party custodian Chavon Green at
their residence in Huntington, West Virginia).
4
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 257
A defendant may be detained only if the government shows,
by clear and convincing evidence, that no release condition or
set of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the
community and/or the government shows, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the defendant's appearance. 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e), (f) and (g). In certain cases, such as drug crimes
“for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more
is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act” there is "a
rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other
person and the community ." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2) and
(f)(1)(C).
"In a presumption case such as this, a defendant bears a
limited burden of production - not a burden of persuasion - to
rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he
does not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk."
United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001).
"Once a defendant has met his burden of production relating to
these two factors, the presumption favoring detention does not
disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among
those weighed by the district court." Id.
5
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 258
In determining if release conditions exist that will
reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant at trial and the
safety of the community, the court considers the following: (1)
the nature and circumstances of the crime; (2) the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and
characteristics of the defendant, including mental condition,
family ties, employment, community ties, and past conduct; and
(4) the seriousness of the danger to the community or to an
individual. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Defendant’s main argument in support of release is that the
magistrate judge erred in finding that he did not have
“significant family or other ties to the community.” ECF No. 18
at 3. According to defendant, Magistrate Judge Tinsley viewed
the term “community” too narrowly. Relying on United States v.
Townsend, 897 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1990), defendant argues that
“community ties” embraces not only the community in which
charges are brought but also any community to which a defendant
has ties. In this case, although defendant does not have ties
to the Southern District of West Virginia, defendant maintains
that he has shown that he has significant ties to Dayton, Ohio.
The court having taken into account the entirety of the
evidence of record, the Pretrial Services Report, the arguments
of counsel (both oral and written), and the statutory
6
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 259
presumption in favor of detention, FINDS by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant is a danger to the community and further
FINDS by a preponderance of the evidence that there is no
condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably
assure the safety of the community. Even if defendant has
rebutted the presumption based upon his community ties to the
Dayton, Ohio area,3 the § 3142(g) factors do not support
release.4
Specifically, the court finds that the nature and
circumstances of the offense charged support defendant's
continued detention because he is charged with two serious drug
offenses carrying statutory maximum sentences of twenty (20)
years for each, for total sentencing exposure of forty (40)
3 The“‘presumption is not erased when a defendant proffers
evidence to rebut it; rather the presumption remains in the case
as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be
weighed along with other evidence relevant to factors listed in
§ 3142(g).’” United States v. Uribe, Case No. 3:21-cr-2-4, 2021
WL 1143289, at *2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2021) (quoting United
States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008)).
4A defendant’s lack of ties to the community where charges are
pending is still relevant to the court’s decision on release.
See United States v. Sanders, Criminal No. 19-354, 2021 WL
1627773, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021) (“The court may consider
a defendant’s ties to the district in which the case is
pending.”); United States v. Villegas, No. 3:11-CR-28, 2011 WL
1135018, at *7 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2011) (“[A]lthough the
defendant has ties with the community in which he lives in
California, the defendant has no ties with this District, and
the Court may consider this fact.”).
7
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 260
years. Significantly, the instant offenses were committed while
defendant was on release pending trial for drug charges in Lewis
County Circuit Court in Weston, West Virginia. See 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g)(3)(B) (directing the court to consider “whether, at the
time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on
probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial,
sentencing, appeal,. . . .”).
The weight of the evidence likewise weighs against
releasing defendant as he has pled guilty. See Terry, 2024 WL
3849772, at *3 (“Second, respecting the weight of the evidence,
the same is obviously strong inasmuch as Mr. Terry has pled
guilty to the offense.”).
Concerning the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the court finds that although certain aspects support
the defendant's release, i.e., he has significant ties to
Dayton, Ohio and a job if released, on the whole, his history
and characteristics support detention. First, defendant has a
significant criminal history given his age. The pretrial
services report lays out a lengthy list of crimes beginning at
age 18 and continuing to the present day. Notably, that criminal
history includes numerous instances of failure to appear. While
defendant attempts to minimize those nonappearances due to his
8
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 261
young age at the time, they are still significant indicators
that he presents a risk of nonappearance in this case.
Defendant also argues that his relationship with Ms.
Oliver, his newborn daughter, and employment prospects weigh in
favor of release. However, defendant’s involvement with Ms.
Oliver and his employment predated his commission of the
offenses in this case. His daughter was born in August of 2025,
but his crimes were committed in March and April of 2025. The
court does not see how his relationships and employment would
deter defendant from further criminal activity when they did not
do so in the first place. Furthermore, the court has serious
reservations about Ms. Oliver’s ability to serve as a third-
party custodian for defendant given that she is balancing
employment and a newborn.5
As for the nature and seriousness of Boyd’s danger to the
community, the drug Boyd was distributing was fentanyl, an
extremely dangerous drug. “Safety of the community is
implicated not only by violence, but also by narcotics
trafficking.” Sanders, 2021 WL 1627773, at *6. There are
frankly no conditions that could completely cut off defendant’s
5 Asthe court was preparing to file this order, counsel for
defendant provided a letter from Ms. Oliver to the court. The
court understands Ms. Oliver’s desire to have defendant released
and is sympathetic to the impact of defendant’s incarceration on
9
Case 2:25-cr-00165 Document 52 Filed 06/17/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 262
ability to sell drugs. As noted above, he committed these
crimes while on bond for other drug crimes. Furthermore, his
criminal history does include some crimes which have elements of
violence, including convictions for attempted domestic violence
and failure to comply with Order and/or Signal of Police Officer
(Serious Physical Harm/Substantial Risk).
For all these reasons, the court hereby DENIES defendant’s
motion to revoke the detention order.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record, the United States
Marshal for the Southern District of West Virginia, and the
Probation Office of this court.
It is SO ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2026.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
his family. However, consideration of the 3142(g) factors still
weighs in favor of defendant’s detention pending trial.
10