2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 1 of 14

Pg ID 2439

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Criminal No. 15-CR-20652
Hon. George Caram Steeh

vs.
D-5 QUINCY GRAHAM,
Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF ORDER OF
DETENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
Defendant, QUINCY GRAHAM, by his attorney, MICHAEL A. RATAJ,
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), hereby moves to revoke the prior Order of
Detention issued in this matter on March 15, 2016, for the reasons stated in the
attached Brief in Support. Defendant requests that this Court issue an Order
releasing him on bond with conditions pending resolution of this matter pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3142(c).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(A), undersigned counsel sought concurrence in
the relief requested herein. The Government has denied concurrence.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an
Order releasing him on an unsecured bond with any additional special conditions
the Court deems necessary.

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 2 of 14

Pg ID 2440

Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Michael A. Rataj_______
MICHAEL A. RATAJ (P43004)
Attorney for D-5 Quincy Graham
500 Griswold, Suite 2450
Detroit, MI 48226
313-963-4529
Dated: July 28, 2017

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 3 of 14

Pg ID 2441

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Criminal No. 15-CR-20652
Hon. George Caram Steeh

vs.
D-5 QUINCY GRAHAM,
Defendant.
/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION
OF ORDER OF DETENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant, Quincy Graham, is charged in the Fourth Superseding Indictment as
follows:
Count 1:

RICO Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 1962d;

Count 32: Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence;
18 U.S.C. § 924(c); 2
Count 34: Felon in Possession of a Firearm; 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
At the time Mr. Graham consented to detention in this case, he was detained
and awaiting to be sentenced in Case No. 15-CR-20546 before the Honorable
Denise Page Hood. On December 13, 2015, Mr. Graham pleaded guilty to Felon in
Possession of a Firearm contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Mr. Graham was

sentenced on October 4, 2016, and received a sentence of 27 months.

This

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 4 of 14

Pg ID 2442

sentence will end on or about August 4, 2017, as Mr. Graham has been detained
since August 27, 2015.
Undersigned counsel respectfully submits that a combination of conditions exist
that will assure the safety of the community as well as to ensure that Mr. Graham
appear for all future court proceedings. For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Graham
deserves a chance to demonstrate to the Court that he is worthy of a bond.
This Honorable Court has the authority to review a Magistrate’s detention order
under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Specifically:
If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by a person
other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the
offense and other than a Federal appellate court, the person may
file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a
motion for revocation or amendment of the order. This motion shall
be determined promptly.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Honorable Court’s review of a detention order is de novo. United States v.
Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 36 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, this Honorable Court must
make an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions of
release.

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, upheld by the

Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), a defendant may
be detained pending trial only if a judicial officer “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[.]” 18 U.S.C. §

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 5 of 14

Pg ID 2443

3142(e). A judicial officer’s finding of dangerousness must be “supported by clear
and convincing evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(b). The default position of the
law is that a defendant should be released pending trial or other disposition.
Under the Bail Reform Act, release is mandated to be under “the least
restrictive” condition or conditions reasonably necessary to assure the defendant’s
appearance in court as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Subsection (j) states
that, “nothing in this section shall be construed as modifying or limiting the
presumption of innocence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j). The right to a reasonable bail
preserves the presumption of innocence, unhampered preparation of defense and
safeguard people from punishment prior to conviction. Cain v. Smith, 686 F.2d 374
(6th Cir., 1982).
18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) is based on the understanding “that in our society, liberty is
the norm and detention prior to trial, or without trial, is the carefully limited
exception.” United States v. Bell, 673 F. Supp. 1429, 1430 (E.D. Mich. 1987),
citing United States v. Salerno, 107 S.Ct. 2095 (1987). Congress envisioned the
pretrial detention of only a fraction of accused individuals awaiting trial. United
States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir., 1985). The structure of the statute
mandates every form of release be considered before detention may be imposed.
Id. at 892. Detention determinations must be made individually and, in the final

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 6 of 14

Pg ID 2444

analysis, must be based on the evidence which is before the court regarding the
particular defendant. United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 887 (1st Cir., 1990).
III.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING BAIL

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) provides as follows:
Factors to be considered – The judicial officer shall, in
determining whether there are conditions of release that will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the
safety of any other person and the community, take into account the
available information concerning:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including
whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section
1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim
or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive
device;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of person, including:
(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition,
family ties, employment, financial resources, length
of residence in the community, community ties, past
conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse,
criminal history, and record concerning appearance at
court proceedings; and
(B) 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, or
completion of sentence for an offense under Federal,
State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release. In
considering the conditions of release described in subsection
(c)(1)(B)(xi) or (c)(1)(B)(xii) of this section, the judicial officer
may upon his own motion, or shall upon the motion of the
Government, conduct an inquiry into the source of the property
to be designated for potential forfeiture or offered as collateral

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 7 of 14

Pg ID 2445

to secure a bond, and shall decline to accept the designation, or
the use as collateral, of property that, because of its source, will
not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.
The case of United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, (9th Cir. 1985), provides
guidance on the issue of bail. In Motamedi, supra, the Ninth Circuit found that the
government failed to meet its burden showing that an Iranian citizen charged with
unlawful exportation of arms was a risk of flight. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy,
then a Ninth Circuit Appeal Judge, writing for the majority, interpreted the Bail
Reform Act to mandate “release of a person facing trial under the least restrictive
condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance
of the person as required.”

Id. at 1405.

Further, the Court warned against

constitutional violations, stating “[t]he Fifth and Eighth Amendments’ prohibition
of deprivation of liberty without due process and excessive bail require careful
review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate has been
respected.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit found that “the weight of the evidence is the least important
of the various factors” when considering revocation of a detention order. Id. at
1408. The majority noted that the District Court relied too heavily on the great
weight of the charges against Mr. Motamedi and the government’s assertions of his
guilt. Although a court is permitted to consider the charges against the defendant,
the Bail Reform Act does not permit nor require a court to determine that the

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 8 of 14

Pg ID 2446

defendant is guilty. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the notion that the seriousness
of the offense conclusively points to a determination that a defendant poses a high
risk of flight.
In the case at bar, there is no evidence to establish risk of flight or danger to the
community. The case law on the issue of pretrial release imposes only a “burden
of production” and the Government retains the “burden of persuasion.” See United
States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010). A defendant satisfies his burden of
production if he submits evidence that he is not a danger to the community and
does not pose a risk of flight. Id. at 944.
A. Defendant is not a flight risk
Mr. Graham is 33 years old and a lifelong resident of Detroit. Mr. Graham is
the father of three young children who he has not been able to see since 2015. Mr.
Graham obtained his GED and attended community college for two years.
Upon release, Mr. Graham has two places in which to reside. His cousin,
Monique Cobb, has offered to allow Mr. Graham to reside with her in Redford.
Additionally, Mr. Graham’s sister, Yeavette Crawford, has also expressed her desire
to have Mr. Graham live with her in Detroit.
Mr. Graham also has two employment opportunities waiting for him upon
release. Ms. Tomika Bulley owns Vanguard Cleaning System and has offered Mr.

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 9 of 14

Pg ID 2447

Graham a job as has Mr. Ronnie Blanton, the proprietor of Handyman Cleaning
Service.
With respect to Mr. Graham’s limited criminal history, Mr. Graham has always
appeared for Court as directed and has always fully complied with all the terms
and conditions of his probationary sentences. By way of recent example, Mr.
Graham’s case before Judge Hood started out in the Wayne County Circuit Court.
Mr. Graham appeared for every court appearance before he was arrested by the
Government and his case was transferred to federal court. Simply stated, Mr.
Graham has always demonstrated respect for the judicial system. There is no
evidence that Mr. Graham is a risk of flight. Mr. Graham simply wants to be with
his children and his family. Mr. Graham wants to go to work in order to support
his children. Mr. Graham has strong family ties to Detroit and has no intention of
absconding. Mr. Graham is prepared to vigorously defend against the charges
alleged in the Fourth Superseding Indictment.
B. Defendant is not a danger to the community
Additionally, Mr. Graham is not a danger. Mr. Graham does not have access to
any weaponry or ammunition, or anything else that could pose a danger.
Mr. Graham’s criminal history does not include any violent or assaultive crimes.
In the case at bar, none of the overt acts attributed to Mr. Graham have anything to
do with violence or assaultive behavior.

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 10 of 14

Pg ID 2448

The Court should further note that while incarcerated at the Milan-FDC, Mr.
Graham completed the “FDC Change Program.” (Exhibit 1). The “Change
Program” is a “therapeutic self-challenge program” which promotes life skills and
the changing of behavior which assists participants in becoming more productive
members of society. The program consists of a 12-step process. (See Exhibit 1).
Furthermore, Mr. Graham became a leader in the Change Program and was a
regular speaker to the participants in the program.
Moreover, out of the nineteen defendants charged in this case, eight are out on
bond. Six of Mr. Graham’s co-defendants have similar charges and two codefendants have aided and abetted in murder.
By way of example, D-18 Matleah Scott is charged in Count 16 with Murder in
Aid of Racketeering. Ms. Scott is charged in Count 18 and Count 20 with
Attempted Murder in Aid of Racketeering. Ms. Scott is also charged in Counts 21,
22 and 23 with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in Aid of Racketeering. Ms.
Scott is charged with multiple 924(c) counts. Ms. Scott is also death penalty
eligible. Ms. Scott is out on bond.
D-2 Steven Arthur, Jr., was involved in a high-speed chase with Police. When
apprehended, the Police found a weapon on Mr. Arthur which was ultimately
traced to a number of shootings. Mr. Arthur is charged in the same manner as Mr.

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 11 of 14

Pg ID 2449

Graham, that being the RICO count, the global 924(c) alleged in Count 32 and a
Felon in Possession count. Mr. Arthur is out on bond.
D-3 Eugene Fisher is charged in Count 25 with Attempted Murder in Aid of
Racketeering and Count 26 with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in Aid of
Racketeering. Mr. Fisher is out on bond.
D-9 Derrick Kennedy had warrants when he was arrested in West Virginia with
drugs on his person. In fact, Mr. Kennedy was on the run for 6 months before he
was arrested. Mr. Kennedy is out on bond.
Additionally, upon information and belief, many of the defendants who were
granted bond do not reside in the Eastern District of Michigan and live out of state.
The Court should also note that since being incarcerated at Milan-FDC, Mr.
Graham has been a model prisoner. He did not receive any tickets and has not
caused any problems.
IV.

DEFENDANT DESERVES AN UNSECURED BOND WITH
CONDITIONS

18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) provides in relevant part:
(1) If the judicial officer determines that the release described in
subsection (b) of this section will not reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety
of any other person or the community, such judicial officer shall
order the pretrial release of the person –
(A) subject to the condition that the person not commit a
Federal, State, or local crime during the period of
release; and

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 12 of 14

Pg ID 2450

(B) subject to the least restrictive further condition, or
combination of conditions, that such judicial officer
determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person as required and the safety of any other person
and the community, which may include the condition
that the person:
(i)
remain in the custody of a designated
person, who agrees to assume
supervision and to report any violation
of a release condition to the court.
…
(iv) abide by specified restrictions on personal
association, place of abode, or travel;
…
(vi) report on a regular basis to a designated
law enforcement agency, pretrial services
agency, or other agency;
(vii) comply with a specified curfew;
(viii) refrain from possessing a firearm,
destructive device, or other dangerous weapon;
(ix) refrain from excessive use of alcohol, or
an use of a narcotic drug or other controlled
substance.
Based on the law and arguments above, Mr. Graham should be granted an unsecured
bond with the following conditions:
- Reside with a court approved third-party custodian;
- Weekly reporting requirements;
- No possession of any type of firearm, ammunition or other dangerous
weapon;
- The requirement that Defendant wear a tether and abide by a curfew;

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 13 of 14

Pg ID 2451

- No travel outside the Eastern District of Michigan;
- No contact with any co-defendants;
- No alcohol or controlled substances;
- Obtain employment.
The foregoing conditions will certainly satisfy any concerns the Government may
have.
The bottom-line is that Mr. Graham deserves the chance to be with his
family.

Regretfully, Mr. Graham’s mother passed away while he has been

incarcerated and he was not able to attend his mother’s funeral. The only thing that
Mr. Graham wants is an opportunity to hold his children and spend time with his
family and loved ones.
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Michael A. Rataj_______
MICHAEL A. RATAJ (P43004)
Attorney for D-5 Quincy Graham
500 Griswold, Suite 2450
Detroit, MI 48226
313-963-4529
Dated: July 28, 2017

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 578

Filed 07/28/17

Pg 14 of 14

Pg ID 2452

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Michael A. Rataj hereby states that on July 28, 2017, he electronically filed
Defendant’s Motion for Revocation of Order of Detention and Request for
Hearing, Brief in Support of Motion for Revocation of Order of Detention and
Request for Hearing and Certificate of Service with the Clerk of the Court using
the ECF system which will send notification of such to Assistant United States
Attorney Christopher Graveline.
____/s/ Michael A. Rataj_______
MICHAEL A. RATAJ