USA v. Lee, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	3:25-CR-18-KAC-JEM-1
)
JIMMY LEE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
Before the Court is Defendant Jimmy Lee’s January 23, 2026 “Objection to Magistrate
Judge’s Order Denying Reopening of Detention and Appeal of Detention Order Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3145(b)” [Doc. 161]. The filing is not a model of clarity. But in the filing, Defendant,
who is represented by counsel, appears to seek to do three different things: (1) object to the
magistrate judge’s January 2026 Memorandum and Order denying his motion to reconsider
detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) [Doc. 157], (2) appeal the magistrate judge’s initial
detention order from March 2025 under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) [Doc. 38], and (3) obtain “temporary
release” under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). For the reasons below, the Court denies each request.
On March 5, 2025, a grand jury indicted Defendant for conspiring to distribute 400 grams
or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl, ten (10) grams or
more of p-fluorofentanyl, and a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and
841(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C); conspiring to distribute fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A); distributing fifty (50) grams of
more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); aiding and
abetting the distribution of fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 172 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
§ 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 [Doc. 3 at 1-2, 7, 9, 11].
In March 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook conducted an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether Defendant should be detained pending trial [Doc. 37]. Thereafter,
she ordered Defendant detained [Doc. 38]. 	Judge McCook determined that the United States
proved “[b]y clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of
release [would] reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community” [Id. at 2].
Then on April 2, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, which added two (2)
counts against Defendant—possession with the intent to distribute five (5) grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B); and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) [See Doc. 39].
On November 16, 2025, Defendant, now represented by a different attorney, moved to
reopen his detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) [Doc. 132]. 	He argued that his recent
acceptance into Sober Living Provisions—a men’s long term recovery housing program—and his
rehabilitative efforts while in detention “demonstrate[d] that a combination of conditions exists to
reasonably assure the safety of the community” [See id. at 7; see also Doc. 132-2 at 1].
On January 7, 2026, Judge McCook denied Defendant’s motion to reopen under
Section 3142(f)(2). She concluded that the new information Defendant presented could have been
known to him at his detention hearing, and in any event, the new information “does not have a
material bearing on whether there are conditions of release that [would] reasonably assure the
safety of any other person and the community” [See Doc. 157 at 2].
On January 23, 2026 Defendant filed his “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying
Reopening 	of 	Detention 	and 	Appeal 	of 	Detention 	Order 	Pursuant 	to 	18 	U.S.C.
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 172 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
§ 3145(b)” [Doc. 161]. In the filing, he seeks to (1) object to Judge McCook’s January 2026 order
denying his motion to reconsider detention [Doc. 157], (2) appeal Judge McCook’s March 2025
detention order [Doc. 38], and (3) obtain “temporary release” under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)
[Doc. 161]. 	The United States opposed [Doc. 171]. 	The Court addresses each of Defendant’s
requests in order.
First, the Court overrules Defendant’s objections to Judge McCook’s January 2026 order
denying his motion to reconsider detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) [Doc. 157]. Defendant’s
objections boil down to his bald assertion that “the magistrate judge’s order misapplies the legal
framework.” [See Doc. 161 at 2]. That assertion is wrong. Under 18 U.S.C § 3142(f), a detention
“hearing may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not
known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether
there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required
and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 	“Courts interpret
this requirement strictly, requiring a showing of truly changed circumstances or a significant
event.” United States v. Bothra, No. 20-1364, 2020 WL 2611545, at *1 (6th Cir. May 21, 2020)
(citations omitted). 	Judge McCook properly applied this prevailing law and the accompanying
legal framework [See Doc. 157 at 3-4]. So, the Court denies Defendant’s objections.
As Defendant rightfully noted, the assessment of a motion to reopen a detention hearing
under Section 3142(f)(2) is different than the appeal of an initial detention decision under 18
U.S.C. § 3145(b) [See Doc. 161 at 2-3]. Under Section 3145(b), the appeal of a magistrate judge’s
detention order is made to the presiding district judge, the undersigned. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
Therefore, the undersigned addresses the Section 3145(b) appeal in the first instance.
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 172 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
Second, Defendant’s appeal of the March 2025 detention order [Doc. 38] is untimely.
Under Section 3145(b), if a magistrate judge orders a defendant detained pending trial, the
defendant “may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for
revocation or amendment of the [detention] order.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). But under Local Rule
72.4(b), “[a]ny appeal from a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive motion in a felony
criminal case shall be taken within 14 days of service of the order.” 	E.D. Tenn. L.R. 72.4(b).
Defendant did not timely appeal the March 2025 detention order. 	In fact, he did not ask the
undersigned to review the Order until ten (10) months later [See Doc. 161 at 1]. So, the appeal is
untimely under this Court’s Local Rules. And Defendant cites no law or facts that would allow
him to file an untimely appeal. 	So, the Court denies Defendant’s appeal of the March 2025
detention order.
Finally, Defendant’s argument that he is entitled to “temporary release” also fails. 	Under
18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), the Court may “permit the temporary release” of a detained individual if the
Court “determines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for
another compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. § 2142(i). “The defendant has the burden of establishing
circumstances warranting temporary release.” 	Bothra, 2020 WL 2611545, at *2. 	Counsel for
Defendant reports that Defendant “has experienced being accused by other detainees of
cooperating with law enforcement; threats and retaliatory conduct within the jail; and safety-based
housing changes” [Doc. 161 at 5]. He also argues that “detention officials cannot fully eliminate”
these risks [Id.]. But the arguments of counsel are not evidence of these challenges. And without
presenting any evidence, Defendant has not met his burden. See Bothra, 2020 WL 2611545, at *2
(denying defendant’s request for temporary release because “there is no evidence in the record
suggesting that [defendant’s medical] conditions are life threatening or otherwise sufficiently
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 172 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
serious”). So, on the record before this Court, Defendant’s argument for “temporary release” under
Section 3142(i) fails.
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Order Denying Reopening of Detention and Appeal of Detention Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3145(b)” [Doc. 161].
SO ORDERED.
KATHERINE A 	YTZER
United States District Judge
KATHERINE A. CRY	R	RY	R	R	RY	RY	RY	RY	RY	Y	RY	RY	R	RY	RY	R	R	RY	Y	RY	RY	Y	RY	RY	R	RY	Y	Y	R	R	R	RY	Y	RY	RY	Y	R	R	R	RY	R	RY	RY	RY	Y	Y	R	R	R	RY	R	R	RY	Y	Y	RY	Y	R	R	R	RY	Y	Y	R	R	R	RY	Y	Y	RY	R	RY	Y	Y	R	RY	Y	R	RY	Y	RY	RY	R	R	RY	RY	RY	R	RY	Y	Y	Y	RY	Y	RY	R	RY	Y	Y	R	RY	R	RY	Y	R	R	R	RY	Y	Y	Y	R	RY	Y	Y	R	R	RY	RY	Y	Y	Y	Y	R	R	RY	Y	Y	R	R	R	R	RY	Y	Y	R	R	RY	Y	R	RY	Y	Y	R	RY	R	RY	R	R	RY	R	R	R	RY	R	R	RY	Y	R	R	R	R	RY	Y	Y	R	RY	Y	Y	Y	R	R	R	RY	YTZ	TZ	Z	Z	TZ	Z	Z	Z	Z	TZ	T	TZ	Z	Z	TZ	T	TZ	Z	TZ	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	TZ	Z	Z	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	TZ	T	T	T	T	T	T	TZ	Z	TZ	TZ	TZ	T	T	T	T	TZ	Z	TZ	TZ	T	T	TZ	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	TZ	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	T	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	TZ	Z	Z	Z	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	T	TZ	Z	T	T	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	Z	T	T	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	T	T	T	TZ	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	T	TZ	Z	T	T	T	T	TZ	T	T	T	TZ	Z	T	TZ	Z	Z	T	TZ	Z	T	TZ	Z	T	TZ	Z	TZ	Z	ZER
United States Distriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiict	ct	ct	ct	ctttt	ct	ct	ct	ctt	ct	cttt	ccttt	ccccttt	ct	ccccccccccccccccccc JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJud	udddd	ud	ud	uddddddddd	uddddd	ud	uddddddddddd	uddddd	uuudd	uudd	uuud	ud	uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ge
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 172 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>