Order Denying Defendant’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Ecf No. 22) — No. 2:21-mj-30178 (Dkt. 25, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

Order, ECF No. 25 filed September 24, 2021 in United States v. Mykia King, Case No. 2:21-mj-30178 in the Eastern District of Michigan, denying King's amended motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22) of the order revoking her bond. King is charged with conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; the complaint alleges she used others' personal identifying information to withdraw cash from ATMs and to obtain pandemic unemployment assistance from the State of Michigan, attempting about $930,200 and obtaining about $366,820. She was released on bond June 7, 2021; after a Farmington Hills arrest, the court held a hearing on August 17, 2021 and revoked the bond (ECF No. 19). Anthony P. Patti, United States Magistrate Judge, finds no palpable defect in that order and calls her a flight risk given a reported $234,000 yearly income against $1,680 in assets.

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

Full text

     Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.91 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 7




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

              Plaintiff,               CASE No. 2:21-mj-30178

v.
                                       HON. ANTHONY P. PATTI
MYKIA KING,

              Defendant.
                                          /

           ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR
                   RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 22)

        Defendant Mykia King is charged with conspiracy to commit wire and mail

fraud in violation of title 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that

Defendant used personal identifying information (PPI), including social security

numbers and unauthorized or doctored identification materials, to make cash

withdrawals from ATMs throughout the Detroit Metro area and to fraudulently

obtain pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) funds from the State of

Michigan. According to the Government, although she attempted to defraud the

State out of approximately $930,200, she actually obtained approximately

$366,820. (ECF No. 1, PageID.14-21, ¶¶ 22-34.) The Government alleges that

King perpetrated at least the PUA crimes in conjunction and with the assistance of

Jermaine Rose. (Id., PageID.11-14, ¶¶ 16-22.)
                                              1
  Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.92 Filed 09/24/21 Page 2 of 7




      Defendant was initially released on bond on June 7, 2021, subject to

multiple conditions, including that she “not file any claims for unemployment

benefits either for [he]rself or any other person” and that she “not possess any

personally identifiable information (PII) of any other person.” (ECF No. 11,

PageID.39, ¶ x(ii)(iii).) Two months later, the Court revoked her bond and ordered

that she be taken into custody after she had been arrested by the Farmington Hills

Police Department and found to be in the possession of “several credit cards and

gift cards not in [her] name.” (ECF No. 14, PageID.52.)

      A hearing was held on August 17, 2021, and the Court issued an order

revoking her bond the following day, noting in its order that Defendant “was found

in actual possession of a false driver’s license and six credit, debit or gift cards, all

with the names of other women on them, and in constructive possession of a

notebook containing names, social security numbers, addresses and banking

information of others, in addition to correspondence involving California

unemployment benefits in someone else’s name.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.61.) The

Court further noted that Defendant “also appears to have been untruthful to her

Pretrial Services officer regarding her arrest, and to the police regarding the reason

for having a false driver’s license (claiming that she needs it to get into bars for

underage drinking when she is at least 28 years old).” (Id.) The Court found

probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed a federal, state or local

                                               2
    Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.93 Filed 09/24/21 Page 3 of 7




crime while on release, as well as clear and convincing evidence that she had

violated the release conditions that she refrain from possessing any personally

identifiable information of any other person and from filing any claims for

unemployment benefits for herself or any other person. (Id., PageID.62.) The

Court further found, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), that she is unlikely to abide

by any condition or combination of conditions of release and that there are no

conditions or combination of release conditions that will assure that she not flee or

pose a danger to the safety of any other person and the community. (Id.) The

Court’s reasoning was further fleshed out from the bench and incorporated into its

order by reference. Among several other reasons given by the Court was the

concern that Defendant had not proposed a suitable living situation into which she

could be released.

       Currently before the Court is Defendant’s amended motion for

reconsideration, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.Cr.R. 12.1 and E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(h)(3), of the order revoking bond. (ECF No. 22.)1 The government has filed a

brief in response. (ECF No. 23.) In her amended motion for reconsideration,

Defendant proposes two living situations where she could live while on bond and

argues that the Court’s decision to revoke bond contained a “palpable defect,” i.e.,



1
 The original motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 20) was denied as moot based
upon the amended version. (See Sept. 6, 2021 Text-Only Order.)
                                             3
  Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.94 Filed 09/24/21 Page 4 of 7




“a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Witzke v. Hiller,

972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he moving party must show that the

Court made a mistake based on the record before it, and rectifying the mistake

would change the outcome.” Southfield Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of the

Southfield Pub. Sch., 319 F.Supp.3d 898, 902 (E.D. Mich. 2018). However, a

motion for reconsideration that presents the same issues already ruled upon by the

court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford

Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Here, Defendant has not shown that the Court made a mistake based on the record

that was before it, because neither of the proposed living situations was previously

suggested to the Court.

      For the reasons already explained from the bench at the revocation hearing

and its resulting order, even if she had proposed these two alternative living

situations at the August 2021 hearing, the Court would nevertheless have revoked

her bond and stands by that decision.

      Defendant proposes that she be released to live with either her father or her

grandmother. (ECF No. 22, PaageID.72-74.) The Court notes from the Pretrial

Services report that Defendant told her Pretrial Services officer that she has no

contact with her father, Michael King (who has a 1992 federal drug conspiracy

conviction for which he served a five-year prison sentence). Leaving aside her

                                              4
  Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.95 Filed 09/24/21 Page 5 of 7




father’s prior criminal history, it is curious that she would offer his household as a

place to reside, considering the apparent lack of a relationship between them. It is

also notable that his household includes his fiancée and their two small children,

ages five and two. (Id., PageID.72 ¶ 6.) Even if the Court could overlook the

apparent estrangement between Defendant and her father, all sides agree that

Defendant would have to be prohibited from access to any electronic devices. This

does not appear to be achievable in a home with four other people, two of whom

are vulnerable and manipulable children, and one of whom is at or near school age,

which is noteworthy during a global pandemic when remote learning is frequently

utilized. Likewise, Defendant’s grandmother, a retired postal worker who

presumably engages in activities outside the home, cannot be expected to keep an

eye on her adult granddaughter at all hours to assure that no electronic devices

would be secretly delivered to her by Jermaine Rose, co-conspirators or others.

      Given the nature of the crimes with which Defendant is charged, and her

demonstrated propensity to keep committing such crimes and lying about them, the

Court remains convinced that she is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions of release. Defendant’s behavior while on bond for a

matter of only two months demonstrates that she has no intention of complying

with her bond conditions, refraining from ongoing criminal activity, or being

forthright and cooperative with her Pretrial Services officer. Her activities

                                              5
  Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.96 Filed 09/24/21 Page 6 of 7




continue to harm unsuspecting citizens, whose lives and economic well-being may

be ruined or significantly disrupted through Defendant’s refusal to refrain from

obtaining, possessing and using PII belonging to others. And a State or the Federal

Government is likely to sustain harm through Defendant’s ongoing fraudulent

activity in connection with applying for unemployment benefits in other people’s

names, as indicated by the California unemployment correspondence found in her

possession by the Farmington Hills Police while she was on bond.

      More broadly, the Court agrees with the Government that Defendant’s past

behavior while on pretrial release “shows a flagrant disregard of her bond

conditions, the law, and the rights of other individuals.” (ECF No. 23, PageID.77.)

Defendant’s violations “were not technical or minor ones[,]” and, as the

Government points out, “[h]ouse arrest is simply no barrier to crime of this sort,”

since “it is hardly a heavy lift to obtain access to [an electronic device] and use it

surreptitiously.” (Id., PageID.84.) Neither home incarceration, nor third-party

custodianship, nor a prohibition against possessing electronic devices will

reasonably assure the safety of the community, or, for that matter, Defendant’s

compliance with her bond conditions. Her “actual possession of a false driver’s

license and six credit, debit or gift cards, all with the names of other women on

them,” and “[her] constructive possession of a notebook containing names, social

security numbers, addresses and banking information of others, in addition to

                                               6
  Case 2:21-mj-30178-DUTY ECF No. 25, PageID.97 Filed 09/24/21 Page 7 of 7




correspondence involving California unemployment benefits in someone else’s

name[,]” (ECF No. 19, PageID.61), which is the very type of contraband involved

in the pending charges, – not to mention her apparent lack of truthfulness with her

Pretrial Services officer and the police – convince the Court that she does not

intend to comply with its orders. She is likely to find or arrange for the means by

which she may continue to engage in the unlawful activity for which she has been

charged, and this activity can easily take place irrespective of whether she is

confined to a relative’s home, subjected to electronic monitoring, or placed under

third-party custodianship. Moreover, her apparent ability and willingness to obtain

the PII of others and assume their identities, and the substantial monetary gain she

is alleged to have amassed through fraudulent means ̶ coupled with the $234,000

legitimate yearly income she reported to Pretrial Services, against which she

reports having accumulated only $1,680 in assets ̶ make her a significant flight

risk, quite capable of hiding assets and living as a fugitive under a false identity.

      For these reasons, and because Defendant failed to demonstrate a palpable

defect in the Court’s order revoking bond (ECF No. 19), the amended motion for

reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.

      It is SO ORDERED.

Date: September 24, 2021                              _____________________
                                                      Anthony P. Patti
                                                      United States Magistrate Judge

                                               7


File and source

File

25.pdf

Size

151,745 bytes

SHA-256

984795ba8fe0f95b33323761e135a604f6ee80ed33a93aaef7a25439292be097

Our copy

25.pdf

Original

No public link identified.