Full text
Case 6:24-cr-06012-EAW-MJP Document 57 Filed 10/11/24 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DECISION AND ORDER
v.
6:24-CR-06012 EAW
JULIUS WHITE,
Defendant.
Defendant Julius White (“Defendant”) stands accused by an indictment returned on
January 23, 2024, with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8) (felon
in possession of ammunition). (Dkt. 23). Pending before the Court are Defendant’s
objections (Dkt. 51) to a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 48 (“R&R”)) entered by
United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen,1 recommending that Defendant’s
motion to suppress statements and evidence and motion to dismiss the indictment (Dkt. 35)
be denied. Oral argument was held before the undersigned on October 8, 2024, at which
time the Court explained that it adopted the R&R.2
1
By Text Order entered January 24, 2024, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate
Judge Pedersen to report on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Dkt. 25).
2
A district court reviews any specific objections to a report and recommendation on
a dispositive issue, such as a motion to dismiss, under a de novo standard. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 59(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”). To trigger the de novo review standard,
objections to a report and recommendation “must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings in the magistrate judge’s proposal.” Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.
Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Moreover, “it is established law that a district judge
will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
-1-
Case 6:24-cr-06012-EAW-MJP Document 57 Filed 10/11/24 Page 2 of 3
As for Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment,3 the Court agrees with the
R&R that United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2013), remains controlling
precedent and forecloses Defendant’s facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Court
addressed this very issue in United States v. Rodriguez, 6:23-CR-06173 EAW, 2024 WL
1363680 (W.D.N.Y. April 1, 2024). As to Defendant’s as-applied challenge, the Court
agrees with the R&R that it fails, given that Defendant does not dispute his prior felony
convictions and has offered no other basis on which an as-applied challenge could succeed
in light of Bogle. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R and denies the motion to dismiss
the indictment.
With respect to Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, the Court also adopts the
R&R and denies the motion to suppress. As explained in more detail on the record at the
appearance on October 8, 2024, the Court agrees for the reasons in the R&R that there was
reasonable suspicion for the initial approach by law enforcement toward Defendant4 and
probable cause for Defendant’s arrest once he fled.
recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” United
States v. Gladden, 394 F. Supp. 3d 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Hubbard v. Kelley,
752 F. Supp. 2d 311, 313 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)).
3
Defendant raised no specific objections to the R&R’s findings on the motion to
dismiss the indictment. (See Dkt. 51 at 1 (“This written Objection specifically concerns 1
issue – Defendant’s Motion to suppress any evidence derived from the warrantless arrest
and subsequent search for which a Suppression Hearing was held on April 30, 2024.”)).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed de novo the issues raised by the motion to dismiss the
indictment.
4
The Court explained at oral argument that for the reasons set forth in the R&R, it
agreed that there was reasonable suspicion to approach Defendant when the police arrived
at the scene. (See Dkt. 48 at 18-19). That said, the Court is not convinced that the inquiry
-2-
Case 6:24-cr-06012-EAW-MJP Document 57 Filed 10/11/24 Page 3 of 3
Finally, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court denies Defendant’s motion
to suppress statements made incident to the arrest. (See Dkt. 48 at 11-13).
For these reasons and as explained in more detail during the appearance on October
8, 2024, Defendant’s objections are overruled, the R&R is adopted, and the motion to
dismiss and motion to suppress are denied.
SO ORDERED.
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated: October 11, 2024
Rochester, New York
about reasonable suspicion is even necessary because Defendant was not seized when
initially approached. See United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir. 2007) (“We
hold that, to comply with an order to stop—and thus to become seized—a suspect must do
more than halt temporarily; he must submit to police authority, for ‘there is no seizure
without actual submission.’” (citation omitted)); see also United States v. Swindle, 407
F.3d 562, 572 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A]n order to stop must be obeyed or enforced physically
to constitute a seizure.”). Under no reasonable view of the facts could it be concluded that
Defendant submitted to police authority when initially approached—instead, he fled. Thus,
without a seizure, whether there was reasonable suspicion appears irrelevant. Defendant’s
seizure occurred at the time of his arrest when he was apprehended after fleeing from
police, and thus the question is whether there was probable cause for the arrest. See
Baldwin, 496 F.3d at 220 (“[B]ecause Baldwin’s ultimate seizure was an arrest, the
question is one of probable cause.”). But the same factors that support a finding of
reasonable suspicion for the initial approach also are relevant to the probable cause
determination, and as determined by the R&R, when combined with Defendant’s flight
from the police, those factors support a finding of probable cause for the arrest. (Dkt. 48
at 19).
-3-