Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. David Rice Vladimir Pascal

November 28, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID RICE VLADIMIR PASCAL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBOIS, J.

MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 23, 2011, a grand jury returned an eleven-count Indictment against David Rice and Vladimir Pascal. The Indictment charges Rice and Pascal as follows:

* Count I: As to David Rice: Knowingly and with the intent to defraud using, and aiding and abetting the use of, a counterfeit access device,*fn1 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1029(a)(1);

* Count II: As to David Rice: Knowingly and with the intent to defraud using, and aiding and abetting the use of, an unauthorized access device to obtain a thing of value aggregating $1,000 or more during a one-year period, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1029(a)(2);

* Count III: As to David Rice: Knowingly and without lawful authority possessing and using a means of identification of another person during and in relation to credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(1);

* Count IV: As to David Rice: With the intent to deceive, and for the purpose of unlawfully obtaining credit to make a purchase of merchandise, falsely representing that a Social Security account number had been assigned to him by the Commissioner of Social Security when in fact such number was not assigned to him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(7)(B);

* Count V: As to David Rice: Knowingly and without lawful authority possessing and using a means of identification of another person during and in relation to Social Security fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(11);

* Count VI: As to David Rice and Vladimir Pascal: Conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1029, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371;

* Count VII: As to David Rice: Knowingly and with the intent to defraud using, and aiding and abetting the use of, a counterfeit access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1029(a)(1);

* Count VIII: As to Vladimir Pascal: Knowingly and with the intent to defraud using, and aiding and abetting the use of, a counterfeit access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1029(a)(1);

* Count IX: As to David Rice: Knowingly and without lawful authority producing, and aiding and abetting and willfully causing the production of, an identification document in the name of someone other than himself, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1028(a)(1);

* Count X: As to David Rice and Vladimir Pascal: Knowingly and without lawful authority possessing, and aiding and abetting the possession of, more than 660 means of identification of other people with the intent to commit and to aid and abet a violation of federal law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1028(a)(7); and

* Count XI: As to David Rice and Vladimir Pascal: Knowingly and without lawful authority possessing, and aiding and abetting the possession of, more than 660 means of identification of other people during and in relation to counterfeit and unauthorized access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1028A(a)(1), (c)(4).

At hearings before Chief United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells on

July 5, 2011, defendants Pascal and Rice consented to pretrial detention.

Presently before the Court are two motions: defendant Rice's Motion to Modify Pretrial Detention Order and defendant Pascal's Motion for Release Pending Trial. Defendant Rice argues that he should be released pending trial because (1) the only evidence supporting the most serious charge against him is a computer flash drive, and the evidence connecting him to the flash drive is not very strong; (2) he has only failed to appear at one prior proceeding, and that failure was due to a miscommunication in scheduling; (3) he is a lifelong resident of New York City and, if released, would live with his girlfriend in Queens and submit to home monitoring; and (4) he is a trained welder and knows people who could help him secure employment while on pretrial release. Defendant Pascal contends that he is entitled to pretrial release because (1) the Pretrial Services report stated that Pascal did not appear to "present a risk of non-appearance"; (2) he is a lifelong resident of New York City and would live in Brooklyn with his mother and submit to electronic monitoring if released; (3) he has never failed to appear for trial; and (4) his family is willing to pledge property in New York as surety.

The Court conducted a hearing on defendants' motions on November 18, 2011. At the hearing, the Government submitted evidence by proffer supporting continued detention of both defendants. Defendants also submitted evidence by proffer which they argued warranted their release. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies both defendants' motions for pretrial release.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court has jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge's decisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). That provision requires the Court to make a de novo determination of the magistrate judge's detention orders. United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1394 (3d Cir. 1985). However, the reasons the magistrate judge articulated must be given "respectful consideration." United States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 120 (3d Cir. 1986). The transcript of the hearing before the magistrate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.