USA v. LYMONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:11cr37/LC
TRENTON COPELAND,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court following a detention hearing on a
petition to revoke Defendant’s supervised release. 	(Doc. 534). 	For the
reasons below, the Court finds that detention is warranted pending a
final revocation hearing because Defendant has failed to show by clear
and convincing evidence that his release would not pose a danger to the
community.
I. 	Background
Defendant was convicted in 2012 of conspiracy to distribute and
possess with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. 	As
a result of that conviction and his criminal history, Defendant was
sentenced 	to 	life 	imprisonment. 	In 	January 	of 	2017, 	Defendant’s
sentence was reduced to 168 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years’
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 8

2
supervised release. 	Defendant began his term of supervised release on
August 10, 2022.
On December 15, 2025, Defendant was arrested by the Escambia
County Sheriff’s Office 	and charged with 	possession with intent to
distribute 	marijuana and 	possession of drug paraphernalia. 	Those
charges stemmed from the execution of a search warrant at 7540 Oak
Lake Blvd. During the execution of the search warrant at the residence
(where Defendant was reportedly the sole person present), officers found
over 12 pounds of marijuana, digital scales, $2,000 in cash, and materials
used to package drugs for sale. 	Following Defendant’s arrest, he posted
bond in state court. Upon his release from state custody, Defendant told
the U.S. Probation Office (USPO) about his arrest.
The 	USPO 	then 	submitted 	a 	petition 	to 	revoke 	Defendant’s
supervised release. 	In addition to alleging the new law violation based
on 	Defendant’s 	arrest, 	the 	petition 	alleges 	Defendant 	violated 	his
supervised release by failing to provide notice of a change in address1 and
1 Defendant had listed his mother’s address as his residence with the
USPO. The Oak Lake Blvd. address where Plaintiff was found with over
12 pounds of marijuana and $2,000 in 	cash, was not his mother’s
residence (rather, it was his sister’s residence). 	Additionally, officers
with the Sheriff’s Office informed the USPO that during the course of the
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 8

3
by frequenting a place where narcotics were present. 	Based on the
allegations in the petition, Judge Collier issued a warrant for Defendant’s
arrest.
On January 13, 2026, Defendant made his initial appearance on the
petition. At that time, the Government moved for detention pending the
final revocation hearing. 	Defendant requested a detention hearing,2
which the Court held on January 15, 2026. 	Both the Government and
Defendant proceeded by proffer at the hearing.
II. 	Discussion
Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Defendant bears the “burden of establishing by clear and convincing
evidence that [he] will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or
the community.” 	Rule 32.1(a)(6) refers to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a), which
states a defendant “shall be detained” unless the defendant makes the
requisite showing by clear and convincing evidence. 	Although a closer
investigation leading up to the search warrant they had surveilled
Defendant at several different addresses.
2 Defendant initially also requested a preliminary hearing. 	At the start
of 	the 	hearing, 	however, 	Defendant 	withdrew 	his 	request 	for 	a
preliminary hearing. 	Thus, the hearing proceeded solely on the issue of
detention.
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 8

4
call than some cases, the Court finds Defendant has failed to meet that
heavy burden here.
Defendant 	is 	alleged 	to 	have 	committed 	a 	new 	felony 	drug
trafficking offense while on supervised release for committing a felony
drug trafficking offense. The photographs introduced by the Government
show that Defendant possessed a relatively large quantity of marijuana,
along with many other tools of the drug dealer’s trade (i.e., digital scales,
baggies, and $2,000 in cash). 	Moreover, the police report introduced by
the Government indicates that the search warrant and Defendant’s
arrest was the result of an ongoing drug trafficking investigation.
And the residence where the search warrant was executed was one
that 	Defendant 	never 	reported 	to 	the 	USPO. 	Although 	Defendant
proffered that he was still living with his mother at the address approved
by the USPO, the Court finds Defendant’s proffer on that point to be
unpersuasive. 	Based on the other information in the record, it appears
to the Court that Defendant was residing (at least on a regular basis) at
the Oak Lake Blvd. address (and perhaps other locations, as reflected by
the Government’s introduction of a utility bill in Defendant’s name for
yet another address).
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Defendant has proffered that he could return to live with either his
mother or his sister if released. Defendant further proffered that he has
strong family support and ties to the Pensacola community. 	Moreover,
Defendant has stated that he would agree to home confinement and GPS
monitoring 	if 	released. 	Ultimately, 	the 	Court 	does 	not 	believe 	the
information offered by Defendant is sufficient to meet his burden of
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he would not pose a
danger to the community if released.3 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a).
Defendant’s history of drug trafficking and his apparent return to
drug trafficking while on supervised release is highly concerning to the
Court. 	Although Defendant was spared from a mandatory life sentence
and given the opportunity of a second chance through a rare early
release, it appears as though he has chosen to return to the very type of
activity that landed him in federal prison to begin with. 	Moreover, it
appears Defendant was engaging in felony drug trafficking while on
3 The Court does find, however, that Defendant has shown by clear and
convincing evidence that he does not pose a risk of flight. He is a longtime
resident of the Pensacola area, has strong family ties to this area, and he
has no history of failing to appear. Moreover, he contacted the USPO to
report his arrest after being released from state custody.
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 8

6
conditions of release similar to those that the Court would be imposing
were it to release him pending his final revocation hearing. 	The Court
lacks confidence that if released today Defendant would not again return
to drug trafficking. The Court appreciates the argument that Defendant
would agree to be on home confinement and GPS monitoring if released,
but neither of those conditions would prevent Defendant from doing what
he was apparently doing before being arrested in this case—selling drugs
from a residence.4
At the end of the day, the burden here (unlike the pretrial release
context under 18 U.S.C. § 3142) is on Defendant to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that his release would not pose a danger to the
community. 	In 	other words, 	Defendant 	has to 	come 	forward with
evidence that leaves the Court with an “abiding conviction” that it is
4 The Court notes that one of the addresses Defendant proposes returning
to if released is the Oak Lake Blvd. address where it appears he was
engaging in drug trafficking. If Defendant’s sister (who it sounds like is
a law-abiding person) was unaware of, and/or unable to stop, Defendant
from selling and storing large quantities of drugs in her house before, it
is unlikely she will be able to do so if Defendant is back living in her
residence.
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 8

7
“highly probable”5 that he will not once again return to drug dealing (an
act that endangers the community) if released. 	See United States v.
Roberts, No. 1:22-cr-228, 2022 WL 11455294, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 19,
2022) (stating that the defendant’s “pattern of continued involvement in
drug trafficking . . . constitutes a danger to others and the community”).
Unfortunately (and despite the best efforts of defense counsel), the Court
is not so convinced.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant should be detained
pending his final revocation hearing. 	Given that finding, the Court
ORDERS that Defendant be held in the custody of the Attorney General
or her designated representative pending a final revocation hearing in
this matter. 	The Attorney General or her designated representative
shall, to the extent practicable, confine Defendant separate from persons
awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with
counsel in private while in custody. 	On order of a court of the United
States or on request of an attorney for the government, the person in
5 Sensormatic Elec. Corp. v. TAG Co. US, LLC, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1147,
1158 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (explaining what constitutes clear and convincing
evidence).
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 8

8
charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the Defendant to the United
States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a
court proceeding.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of January 2026.
s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:11-cr-00037-TKW Document 544 Filed 01/16/26 Page 8 of 8