Defendant’s Motion for Order Directing U.S. Marshal to Arrange for Indigent Defendant’s Noncustodial Transportation to Court for Initial Appearance — No. 3:24-cr-00178 (Dkt. 8, E.D. Va.)

Summary

A defendant's motion for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to arrange noncustodial transportation to court for an initial appearance, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in United States v. Crispin Antonio Abad, Case No. 3:24-cr-178-MHL, docketed as 3:24-cr-00178, as Document 8 of 5 pages, before Hon. M. Hannah Lauck. Abad, referred to as 1SG Abad, asks that the United States Marshal arrange his travel from his home in Killeen, Texas to Richmond, Virginia for the hearing on January 28, 2025 and that his subsistence for the day of travel be paid by the government or from Criminal Justice Act funds, stating that he is indigent. The motion cites 18 U.S.C. § 4285 as the authority to order such travel funded and is filed by the Office of the Federal Public Defender.

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

“Defendant’s Motion for Order Directing U.S. Marshal to Arrange for Indigent Defendant’s Noncustodial Transportation to Court for Initial Appearance — No. 3:24-cr-00178 (Dkt. 8, E.D. Va.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/defendant-s-motion-for-order-directing-u-s-marshal-to-arrange-for-indi-c10db1f755/, SHA-256 9891e74771da9ab69717b6f7895bdef9cdbfb131c368cc92f615875f4b29e97b.

Full text

Case 3:24-cr-00178-MHL Document 8 Filed 01/21/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Case No. 3:24-cr-178-MHL
) Hon. M. Hannah Lauck
CRISPIN ANTONIO ABAD, )
)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL
TO ARRANGE FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANT’S NONCUSTODIAL
TRANSPORTATION TO COURT FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE

The defendant, Crispin Antonio Abad, respectfully moves for an order directing the United

States Marshal to arrange for his noncustodial transportation from his home in Killeen, Texas, to

Richmond, Virginia, where his appearance in court is required. First Seargeant (“1SG”) Abad also

asks the Court to order that his subsistence for his day of travel to Richmond be paid, either by the

government or from Criminal Justice Act funds. 1SG Abad is indigent and cannot afford to pay

his own travel expenses to appear for the hearing on January 28, 2025. 1

I. Travel to court and funds for subsistence during travel should be paid by the
U.S. Marshal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4285.

This Court has statutory authority to order that 1SG Abad’s non-custodial travel be funded

by the U.S. Marshal. Federal law provides:

Any judge or magistrate judge of the United States, when ordering
a person released under chapter 207 on a condition of his subsequent
appearance before that court … may, when the interests of justice
would be served thereby and the United States judge or magistrate
judge is satisfied, after appropriate inquiry, that the defendant is
financially unable to provide the necessary transportation to appear
before the required court on his own, direct the United States

1
1SG Abad is not requesting lodging as he can fly back and forth from Dallas in one day.

1
Case 3:24-cr-00178-MHL Document 8 Filed 01/21/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 21

marshal to arrange for that person’s means of noncustodial
transportation or furnish the fare for such transportation to the
place where his appearance is required, and in addition may
direct the United States marshal to furnish that person with an
amount of money for subsistence expenses to his destination, not
to exceed the amount authorized as a per diem allowance for
travel under section 5702(a) of title 5, United States Code. When
so ordered, such expenses shall be paid by the marshal out of funds
authorized by the Attorney General for such expenses.

18 U.S.C. § 4285 (emphasis added). Other federal courts have held that this statute provides for

the relief sought here. For example, the court in United States v. Gonzales, held: “The plain

language of section 4285, economic realities, and the dictates of the equal protection clause support

the finding that, after appropriate financial inquiry, this Court may order the government to pay or

arrange for the noncustodial transportation of defendant from Texas to Vermont to [appear in

court].” 684 F. Supp. 838, 842 (D. Vt. 1988). Indeed, this Court granted a similar motion in 2021.

See United States v. Lassiter, No. 2:21cr51 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2021) (Jackson, J.) (ordering United

States Marshal to provide defendant’s noncustodial transportation to court).

An “appropriate inquiry” reveals “that the defendant is financially unable to provide the

necessary transportation to appear before the required court on his own.” See § 4285. This Court

has already determined that 1SG Abad is indigent, as evidenced by the appointment of an attorney

in the Office of the Federal Public Defender. 1SG Abad is employed by the U.S. Army, but his

current monthly expenses exceed his monthly income. Thus, 1SG Abad remains indigent and is

without funds to pay for air travel.

1SG Abad needs to travel to Virginia for an initial appearance and plea hearing which will

occur on the same day and cannot afford to pay for his own travel. His hearing is scheduled for

January 28, 2025. To ensure that 1SG Abad is present in time for the hearings set for 1:30 PM and

2:00 PM and has the ability to meet with counsel prior to the hearings, counsel asks the Court to

2
Case 3:24-cr-00178-MHL Document 8 Filed 01/21/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 22

order that 1SG Abad’s travel arrangments allow him to arrive in Virginia by no later than noon on

January 28, 2025.

The Supreme Court “has long recognized that when a State brings its judicial power to bear

on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant

has a fair opportunity to present his defense.” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76 (1985). “This

elementary principle, grounded in significant part on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process

guarantee of fundamental fairness, derives from the belief that justice cannot be equal where,

simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully

in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake.” Id. Those due process principles compel

the conclusion that when the government calls an indigent defendant on bond to answer in a federal

court some 1,400 miles from his home, it must provide him with travel to and from that federal

court such that he is not effectively deprived of the ability to participate meaningfully in the judicial

proceeding in which his liberty is at stake.

The Court could order the payment of 1SG Abad’s return flight to Texas by following a

similar approach taken by Judge Gleeson in United States v. Mendoza, and order funding of his

return travel through the Criminal Justice Act. 734 F. Supp. 2d 281, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (Gleeson,

J.). Like 1SG Abad, the defendants in Mendoza lived out of state, in California, but they were

charged with a federal crime in Brooklyn, New York. Id. at 282. Also like 1SG Abad, the

defendants in that case were neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, so they were

released on bail. Id. Like 1SG Abad, they had court-appointed lawyers. Id. “As their trial neared,

they sought funds so that they could stay somewhere in the New York area for the two weeks that

the prosecutors estimated the trial was going to last.” Id.

3
Case 3:24-cr-00178-MHL Document 8 Filed 01/21/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 23

Judge Gleeson observed that the “CJA requires each district court to operate ‘a plan for

furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation.’” Id.

at 286 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A). The CJA allows counsel to be reimbursed for expert,

investigative, and “other services necessary for an adequate representation.” Id. The Mendoza

court held that “the term ‘other services’ might be read to include lodging for a defendant during

trial.” Id. In the event that the United State Marshals Service refuse to pay for the return trip to

Texas, this Court should order that Criminal Justice Act funds be used to pay for this return trip.

Thus far, in every motion for transportation costs filed by counsel in other cases, the United States

Marshal refuses to pay for the return trip, citing a literal and not logical reading of 18 U.S.C. §

4285. 2

Conclusion

1SG Abad respectfully asks the Court to enter an order directing the U.S. Marshal to

arrange for 1SG Abad’s noncustodial transportation to Richmond, Virginia and the return trip to

Killeen, Texas. See 18 U.S.C. § 4285. Logic dictates that the statute authorizing the United States

Marshal to transport an indigent defendant to court should also require the non-custodial return of

that defendant to his/her home.

2
“Payment for lodging for a defendant who would otherwise be homeless could be said to be
necessary ‘for an adequate representation’; a defendant who sleeps on the streets is not going to
be fit for a trial the next morning.” Id. Judge Gleeson “concluded that the only acceptable option
in this case was to make use of the judiciary’s budget for criminal defense attorneys,” so he “asked
the defense attorneys to book their clients into a modestly-priced hotel for the duration of the trial,
and to pay the hotel bills with their credit cards.” Id. The court then directed that those expenses
be “reimbursed from CJA funds.” Id. However, due to ethical responsibilties, the Court must
reimburse 1SG Abad, or order the United State Marshals to pay for his travel, as counsel cannot
be involved with advancing any money to 1SG Abad.

4
Case 3:24-cr-00178-MHL Document 8 Filed 01/21/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 24

Respectfully submitted,
CRISPIN ANTONIO ABAD

By: /s/
Carolyn V. Grady
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Va. Bar #30445
Attorney for Crispin Antonio Abad
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Eastern District of Virginia
701 E. Broad Street, Suite 3600
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 565-0855 (direct)
(804) 800-4214 (fax)
Carolyn_Grady@fd.org

File and source

File: 8.pdf
Size: 212,723 bytes
SHA-256: 9891e74771da9ab69717b6f7895bdef9cdbfb131c368cc92f615875f4b29e97b
Our copy: 8.pdf
Original: No public link identified.