DECISION & ORDER On March 1, 2021, the defendant Kevin Edwards (“Defendant”) was arraigned before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and presented a bail application with three sureties, which the United States of America (the “Government”) opposed. Id. Magistrate Judge Kuo granted the bail application and set bail at $250,000.00. Id. The Government appealed the bond decision to this Court. This Court held telephonic arguments on the bond appeal on March 1, 2021, and GRANTED the Government’s appeal, overturning the decision of Magistrate Judge Kuo. A permanent order of detention was entered with respect to Defendant. ECF No. 5. The Court now sets out its reasons for the denial of bail. BACKGROUND On January 13, 2021, Kevin Edwards (“Defendant”) was arrested and charged with being a Felon in Possession of Ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). The Honorable Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara ordered Defendant released to home detention with location monitoring on $200,000.00 bond. On February 5, 2021, Defendant pled not guilty to the sole count of the indictment. On February 23, 2021, the Government filed a Sealed Complaint against Defendant charging him with being a Felon in Possession of Ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), for conduct that occurred on February 8, 2020. Defendant was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations at his residence on March 1, 2021. The Honorable Magistrate Judge Kuo ordered Defendant released to home detention on $250,000.00 bond. The Government appealed the decision to this Court, which held a telephonic hearing on the bond decision at approximately 6:00 P.M. on March 1, 2021 and heard arguments from the Government and defense counsel. ECF Minute Entry March 1, 2021. Following arguments, the Court entered an oral order overruling Magistrate Judge Kuo’s bail decision, finding Defendant was both a danger to the community and a flight risk. Id. The Court entered a permanent order of detention pending trial. ECF No. 5. LEGAL STANDARD Under the Bail Reform Act, a court must order pre-trial release of a defendant on a personal recognizance bond if such release will “reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and will not endanger the safety of any other person in the community.” 18 U.S.C. §3142(b). However, if a court “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community,” a court shall order the defendant detained pending trial. Id. §3142(e)(1). A district court reviews de novo a magistrate judge’s decision to release or detain a defendant pending trial. See United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Marrero, J.) (citing United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985)). A district court undertakes a two-step inquiry when evaluating an application for bail. First, the Court must determine whether the Government has established the defendant presents a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See 18 U.S.C. §3142(e). The Government must support a finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995), and a finding of risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019). Second, if the Government meets its initial burden, the Court must determine whether no conditions or combination of conditions of release could reasonably assure the defendant will not flee or will not endanger others, which the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. In making this determination, a court must consider four factors: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged…; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person…; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” 18 U.S.C. §3142(g). Because the “rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply” to bail hearings, see 18 U.S.C. §3142(f)(2)(B), the parties may proceed by way of proffer, United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000). As such, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. ANALYSIS For the reasons set forth on the record and discussed below, the Court finds Defendant poses a danger to the community and a serious flight risk such that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure his appearance in future court proceedings. I. The Government Has Demonstrated Defendant’s Dangerousness and Risk of Flight As required by the Bail Reform Act, the Court considers each of the 18 U.S.C. §3142(g) factors in turn. In the Court’s view, the bail factors support detention rather than release pending trial or other disposition of this case. A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Defendant’s charge, felon in possession of ammunition is a crime of violence, United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152, 163 (2d Cir. 2019) (finding possession of ammunition by felon was categorically a crime of violence). Defendant’s charged conduct is of the utmost seriousness, particularly considering the actions Defendant allegedly took in connection with the possession of ammunition — fatally shooting an individual multiple times in the torso and legs. Complaint (“Compl.”) 3; see also United States v. Dillard, 214 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (“The risk of violent use posed by a convicted felon’s possession of firearms is significant.”). Further, if convicted, Defendant will face lengthy and onerous maximum penalties. This is particularly so because Defendant is likely subject to sentencing enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”). Specifically, the Government alleges three of Defendant’s five previous convictions qualify as “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA, subjecting Defendant to a minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment and an implied maximum of life imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Additionally, based on the Government’s current estimates of Defendant’s criminal history category and the applicability of the homicide enhancement under USSG §2A1.1, which applies when death results from the commission of certain felonies, Defendant’s Guidelines range advises a sentence of 360 months to life imprisonment. USSG §2A1.1. When faced with the possibility of a significant prison term, defendants have a strong incentive to flee. See United States v. Scali, 738 F. App’x 32, 33 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (“The court reasonably determined that [the defendant]‘s Guidelines range of 87-108 months’ imprisonment was significant enough to provide an incentive to flee.”); see also United States v. Khusanov, 731 F. App’x 19, 21 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (“[A] district court does not clearly err in concluding that a defendant facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence possesses a strong motive to flee.”). Accordingly, the Court concludes the nature and circumstances of the offense favor detention. B. The Weight of the Evidence The Government argued at the hearing the evidence against Defendant was significant, warranting detention. The Government reports Defendant was captured on color video walking up to the victim and two other individuals, pulling out his pistol, firing at the victim six times and ultimately fleeing the scene. Compl. 3. The NYPD recovered six .40 caliber cartridge cases from the area where the victim was laying. Id. 4. The Government also alleges the vehicle captured in the surveillance footage was registered to Defendant. Id. s5. Additionally, two witnesses, both of whom were familiar with Defendant, have identified him as the assailant. Id.
