USA v. Amos et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RA’CHE AMOS,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:26-cr-60(1)
Judge Thomas M. Rose
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REVOKE DETENTION ORDER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) (DOC. NO. 68)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant Ra’Che Amos’ (“Defendant”) Motion to Revoke
Detention Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) (the “Motion”) (Doc. No. 68). For reasons
outlined below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion and ORDERS that Defendant remain
detained in federal custody pending trial.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2026, the Grand Jury returned an Indictment against Defendant for conspiracy
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (“Count 1”); knowingly or intentionally distributing drugs in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (“Counts 2–7”); knowingly carrying
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) (“Count
8”); trafficking in firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1) and (a)(3) (“Count 9”); knowingly
receiving or transferring a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(h) (“Count 10”); knowingly
possessing a firearm while a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8); and
knowingly possessing machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 933(o) and 924(a)(2). (See Doc.
Case: 3:26-cr-00060-TMR Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
No. 8 at PageID 132–44.) Pursuant to the Government’s motion (Doc. No. 14), Magistrate Judge
Caroline Gentry held a detention hearing on June 16, 2026. (See Minute Entry, 6/16/2026.)
Following the detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Gentry ordered that Defendant remain detained
pending trial. (See generally Doc. No. 42.) Defendant subsequently filed his Motion, seeking
revocation of his detention order. (Doc. No. 68.) The Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion,
where it heard argument from both Parties regarding Defendant’s request for revocation of the
detention order. After taking the matter under advisement at the time of the hearing, the Court now
finds that the instant matter is ripe for disposition.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The procedural vehicle employed by Defendant’s Motion in pursuing the instant review is
by way of 18 U.S.C. § 3145, which provides, in relevant part:
If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, . . . the person may file, with
the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or
amendment of the order. The motion shall be determined promptly.
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). “This Court reviews de novo an appeal from a magistrate judge’s order of
release or detention.” United States v. Fata, No. 13-30484, 2013 WL 4084765, at *5 (E.D. Mich.
Aug. 13, 2013) (citing United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985)). In other words, after
conducting a hearing, if the reviewing “judicial officer finds that no condition or combination will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other persons and
the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before the trial.”
18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Put simply, “[e]ither finding—flight risk or community danger—can support
detention.” United States v. Brown, 601 F. Supp. 3d 196, 200 (W.D. Ky. 2022). However, as here,
“[t]here is a rebuttable presumption in favor of pretrial detention if there is probable cause to
believe that the defendant committed an offense set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) . . . .” United
Case: 3:26-cr-00060-TMR Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
States v. Rodgers, No. 10-20770, 2011 WL 13390138, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2011); see also
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(C) (“[A]n offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years
of more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act . . . .”). While the “presumption in favor of
detention imposes only a burden of production on the defendant, [] the government retains the
burden of persuasion.” United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010).
III. 	ANALYSIS
As mentioned, the Court held a hearing on October 7, 2026, where it heard argument from
both Parties regarding Defendant’s request for bond reconsideration. By way of new evidence,
Defense Counsel called Rakisha Bragg, Defendant’s mother, who attested to her willingness to
serve as a third-party custodian and house Defendant in the event of his release. Apart from Ms.
Bragg’s testimony, the Defense presented no new evidence that was not presented at the initial
detention hearing. The mere existence of a willing third-party custodian is insufficient to overcome
the onerous presumption favoring detention. See United States v. Faulkner, No. 2:22-CR-20074,
2022 WL 2663849, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2022). As Magistrate Judge Gentry concluded at
the initial detention hearing, the fact of the matter remains: considering Defendant’s criminal
history, his history of failing to appear, and the gravity of the offense at issue, there are simply no
bond conditions that could assure the Court that Defendant is not likely to flee and does not pose
a risk of danger to the community.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Revoke Detention
Order (Doc. No. 68) and ORDERS that Defendant remain detained in federal custody pending
trial.
Case: 3:26-cr-00060-TMR Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:26-cr-00060-TMR Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>