United States v. Samilton: Sufficiency of Detention Findings and Use of Unadjudicated Conduct under the Bail Reform Act

I. Introduction

The Tenth Circuit’s unpublished order in United States v. Samilton, No. 25‑6173 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025), addresses a familiar but often litigated question under the Bail Reform Act: what level of explanation and what type of evidence will support a district court’s decision to detain a defendant pretrial on the ground of “danger to the community”?

Although formally designated “not binding precedent,” the decision provides persuasive guidance on several recurring issues:

• How the § 3142(g) factors apply when the current charge is a nonviolent firearm offense involving a drug user;
• Whether, and to what extent, a court may rely on unadjudicated conduct, dismissed charges, and gang affiliation to find dangerousness;
• What level of detail is required in a detention order’s written findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) and Fed. R. App. P. 9(a); and
• How district courts may treat a magistrate judge’s earlier release order when conducting de novo review.

The case arises from the pretrial detention of Xzavier Brandnelius Samilton, a young defendant charged with being a prohibited person (drug user) in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). A magistrate judge initially ordered release on stringent conditions (including home confinement and GPS monitoring), but the district court reversed and ordered detention. The Tenth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, affirmed.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Underlying Incident and Charge

On September 25, 2025, Oklahoma City police officers responded to multiple calls reporting what sounded like gunshots or fireworks. Officers stopped a vehicle; Samilton was the front-seat passenger. They detected a strong odor of marijuana.

Key facts developed at the detention hearing include:

• Admissions at the stop: Samilton admitted he had been shooting off fireworks and had smoked marijuana just prior to the stop.
• Drugs found on his person: Officers found a pill bottle containing pills; he later admitted these were Percocet tablets he had purchased “off the street,” and a small amount of marijuana.
• Firearm found in the vehicle: A loaded firearm was located under the front passenger seat. Samilton admitted that the firearm belonged to him.

Based on this incident and his admitted drug use, the government charged him with being a prohibited person (drug user) in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

B. Evidence of Drug Use, Gang Affiliation, and Prior Firearm-Related Conduct

At the detention hearing, Detective Autumn Sheets testified about:

• Substance use: In a jail interview, Samilton admitted smoking marijuana multiple times per day, using Percocet, and spending all his money on marijuana. The pretrial services report confirmed daily marijuana use and intermittent Percocet use.
• Gang ties: Sheets described his “close ties” to the Shotgun Crips gang, which has had an internal feud since 2004 involving shootings and murders. Members of Samilton’s family have allegedly been involved.
• Prior violent incidents:
  • A 2023 parking-garage shooting, apparently linked to the internal gang feud, in which Samilton was “allegedly involved.” He was arrested and charged but the charges were dismissed due to “witness issues.”
  • A 2025 case in which he was charged with carrying or possessing firearms by an adjudicated delinquent after allegedly returning fire on someone who shot at him, then picking up spent shell casings.
  • Multiple “prior or pending cases involving guns.”
  • He was also a “person of interest” in an October 2025 homicide; phone records and other evidence suggested he might have been the driver.

Pretrial services also documented stabilizing factors:

• Lifelong residence in the Oklahoma City area;
• High-school graduation in 2023;
• Part-time employment at Dollar Tree;
• Regular contact with his 11‑month‑old child.

C. Magistrate Judge’s Release Order and District Court’s Reversal

Following a detention hearing where Detective Sheets testified and the pretrial services report was considered, a magistrate judge ordered release with strict conditions, including:

• Home confinement; and
• GPS monitoring;
• Other standard pretrial supervision conditions (by implication).

Pretrial services, by contrast, had recommended detention. The government appealed the magistrate judge’s release order to the district court.

The district court:

• Reviewed the release issue de novo (from scratch, not deferentially);
• Reviewed the audio recording of the detention hearing;
• Concluded that all four Bail Reform Act factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) favored detention; and
• Found that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community.

D. Appeal to the Tenth Circuit

Samilton appealed the detention order. He argued, in substance, that:

• The district court did not sufficiently analyze whether conditions (including those set by the magistrate judge) could reasonably assure public safety;
• The court was required to explain why home confinement and GPS monitoring were inadequate;
• The court overstated his prior history and gang activity and failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (employment, family, limited convictions); and
• There was allegedly no evidence showing he was currently dangerous or a genuine threat to the community.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed, issuing a per curiam order and judgment without oral argument, noting that oral argument would not materially assist the decisional process.

III. Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit’s core holdings and conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1. Application of § 3142(g) factors: The district court correctly found that all four statutory factors weighed in favor of detention:
   • The nature and circumstances of the offense (firearm plus drugs);
   • The weight of the evidence (including admissions);
   • The defendant’s history and characteristics (repeated firearm incidents, drug use, gang ties); and
   • The nature and seriousness of the danger posed by his release.
2. No requirement to address each proposed condition in detail: The district court was not required to:
   • Comment on the magistrate judge’s prior release decision, or
   • Discuss each proposed condition (like GPS or home confinement) or explain, one by one, why each was inadequate.
   It sufficed that the district court made findings and gave a reasoned explanation supporting its ultimate conclusion that no conditions could reasonably assure community safety.
3. Use of unadjudicated conduct and prior incidents: The court reaffirmed that in assessing dangerousness under § 3142(g)(3), a court may consider “past conduct” and “criminal history,” including prior incidents that did not result in conviction, such as dismissed charges and other violent or firearm-related events.
4. Standard of review and sufficiency of findings: Applying de novo review to the detention decision and clear-error review to underlying fact findings, the Tenth Circuit found:
   • The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous; and
   • The court satisfied § 3142(i) and Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) by providing written findings and a written explanation sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review, even though the analysis was relatively brief.
5. Rejection of defendant’s characterization of his history: The court rejected the defense contention that his history was “nonviolent” and that the district court overstated it. The presence of multiple firearm-related incidents, gang ties, and alleged involvement in shootings supported a finding of danger, independent of the formal conviction record.

On this basis, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the order of pretrial detention.

IV. Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003)

The panel relies heavily on United States v. Cisneros for two key propositions:

• Burden of proof: The government bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the community and that no conditions will reasonably assure community safety. The opinion explicitly cites Cisneros for this standard.
• Standard of appellate review: A pretrial detention decision involves mixed questions of law and fact. As Cisneros explains, the Tenth Circuit reviews the ultimate detention decision de novo but reviews “underlying findings of historical fact” only for clear error.

The Samilton opinion follows Cisneros in:

• Emphasizing the government’s burden at the detention hearing;
• Reiterating that the appellate court does not simply substitute its judgment on facts but asks whether the district court’s view is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety”; and
• Reaffirming the district court’s obligation to apply § 3142(g)’s statutory factors.

2. United States v. Gilgert, 314 F.3d 506 (10th Cir. 2002)

Gilgert is cited for the definition and practical effect of “clear error” review. The panel quotes the formulation:

“A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on review of the entire record, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

The Samilton panel emphasizes that on clear-error review, the appellate court:

• Does not re-weigh the evidence; and
• Applies “significantly deferential” review to the district court’s factual determinations.

This deference is crucial in upholding the district court’s heavy reliance on law-enforcement testimony about gang affiliation, past shootings, and ongoing investigations, even though many of those matters had not culminated in convictions.

3. Statutes and Rules

• 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act): Governs pretrial release and detention. The court focuses on:
  • § 3142(e)(1): the requirement that detention be ordered if “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure ... the safety of any other person and the community”; and
  • § 3142(g): the four enumerated factors the court must consider (nature of offense, weight of evidence, history and characteristics, nature/seriousness of danger posed).
• 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(1): Requires that a detention order include written findings of fact and a written statement of reasons. This provision underlies the defendant’s argument that the district court’s explanation was insufficient; the panel holds the order satisfied the statute.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c): Provides a route for appellate review of detention orders, which the Tenth Circuit invokes for jurisdiction, alongside 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Fed. R. App. P. 9(a)(1): Requires that the district court state in writing or orally on the record the reasons for its release/detention decision in criminal cases. The panel concludes that this requirement was met.
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3): The substantive offense, prohibiting firearm possession by an unlawful user of or addict to a controlled substance. Although there is ongoing nationwide litigation about the constitutionality of this provision in light of Supreme Court Second Amendment doctrine, this opinion does not address that issue; it treats the charge as valid and focuses solely on pretrial detention.

4. Procedural Rules on Precedential Status and Oral Argument

• Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G): The panel notes that it decided the case without oral argument, concluding that oral argument would not materially assist the decisional process.
• Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1: The order and judgment is designated “not binding precedent,” but may be cited for its persuasive value consistent with these rules. Thus, while not precedential in the strict sense, the case will likely be cited in bail litigation as persuasive authority on detention findings and dangerousness assessments.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The Bail Reform Act Framework

The decision is rooted in the structure of the Bail Reform Act:

• Presumption of release vs. detention for danger: Although the Act favors pretrial release under the “least restrictive” conditions that will reasonably assure appearance and public safety, detention is mandated when the government proves that no conditions can reasonably assure community safety.
• Government’s burden: For “danger” detentions, the government must carry its burden by “clear and convincing evidence” (more than a preponderance but less than beyond a reasonable doubt).
• Factors in § 3142(g): The court must weigh:
  1. Nature and circumstances of the charged offense;
  2. Weight of the evidence against the defendant;
  3. History and characteristics of the defendant (including past conduct, criminal history, family ties, employment, substance abuse, etc.); and
  4. Nature and seriousness of the danger posed by release.

The Tenth Circuit’s reasoning carefully tracks these statutory elements and focuses on the dangerousness prong rather than risk of flight, because the government relied primarily on danger and the district court’s order was grounded on that factor.

2. Application of § 3142(g) Factors to Samilton

a. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The court emphasizes:

• Possession of a loaded firearm;
• By a drug user (daily marijuana and some Percocet);
• With drugs on his person (marijuana and street-obtained Percocet);
• While serving a deferred state-court sentence for a prior offense involving a stolen vehicle and an on-foot police chase.

These facts lead both the district court and the Tenth Circuit to treat the offense as serious and inherently dangerous, even though § 922(g)(3) does not require proof that the gun was discharged or used violently in this instance. The combination of guns and drugs—and the temporal proximity to a suspected shooting/fireworks disturbance—supports the conclusion that this is not a mere technical firearm violation.

b. Weight of the Evidence

The weight of the evidence is strong:

• Officers physically recovered a loaded firearm under the seat where Samilton was sitting;
• Officers found drugs on his person; and
• He affirmatively admitted both that the gun was his and that the pills and marijuana belonged to him, corroborated by his later admission that the pills were Percocets purchased on the street.

Given these admissions and corroborating physical evidence, the panel agrees that the second factor also favors detention. The opinion does not suggest that doubts about guilt or identity exist; rather, it takes for granted that the government’s case on the charged offense is strong.

c. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

This factor presents mixed evidence, but the court finds that the negative aspects outweigh the positive.

Positive factors:

• Stable residence in the community;
• High school graduation;
• Part-time employment;
• Relationship with his infant child.

Negative factors:

• Persistent and heavy marijuana use, plus intermittent Percocet use;
• Multiple past and pending firearm-related incidents, including:
  • Returning fire and then picking up shell casings in a 2025 incident;
  • Alleged involvement in a 2023 shooting related to gang disputes;
  • Being a person of interest in a 2025 homicide as a possible driver.
• Close ties to a violent gang (Shotgun Crips) and family members allegedly involved in associated shootings.

The district court noted that the current firearm offense is not his “first firearm-related offense, nor his most severe.” The Tenth Circuit endorses this characterization and gives significant weight to the pattern of firearm involvement against a backdrop of gang conflict and ongoing violent feuds.

d. Nature and Seriousness of the Danger Posed by Release

The final factor largely synthesizes the first three. The Tenth Circuit concludes that the record supports the district court’s view that:

• The defendant has a history of combining firearms with illegal drug use;
• He is repeatedly involved, at least per law-enforcement evidence, in firearm-related incidents and shootings;
• His close association with a gang embroiled in a longstanding violent feud indicates an ongoing risk of violent confrontations; and
• These circumstances collectively pose a “clear danger to the community.”

Importantly, the court rejects the defense portrayal of his past as nonviolent simply because formal convictions are limited and the current charge is labeled “non-violent.” Dangerousness under the Bail Reform Act is a predictive, forward-looking inquiry that can rest on past conduct and patterns, not merely on convictions or statutory offense labels.

3. Sufficiency of the District Court’s Written Findings

A central issue on appeal was whether the district court’s written order complied with § 3142(i) and Fed. R. App. P. 9(a), especially in light of the magistrate judge’s earlier release order.

The Tenth Circuit clarifies:

• No obligation to address the magistrate judge’s reasoning: On appeal from a magistrate judge’s release or detention order, the district court must review the matter de novo. It is not required to:
  • Give presumptive weight to the magistrate’s findings; or
  • Explain point-by-point why the magistrate judge was wrong or why particular conditions previously imposed are inadequate.
• No requirement to discuss each proposed condition: The statute requires written findings and a statement of reasons, but does not require the court to:
  • Analyze each proposed condition (e.g., GPS, home confinement) separately; or
  • Explain in granular detail why each particular condition, or combination, would fail to mitigate the danger.
  It suffices that the court states, with supporting findings, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure safety.
• Brief reasoning can still be adequate: The panel acknowledges the district court’s analysis was “brief” but concludes that the order:
  • Made relevant factual findings;
  • Explicitly addressed the statutory factors;
  • Identified the nature of the danger (guns, drugs, gang ties, repeated incidents); and
  • Clearly articulated its bottom-line conclusion that no set of conditions would reasonably assure community safety.
  This was sufficient to permit effective appellate review.

4. Consideration of Evidence Favorable to the Defendant

The defendant contended that the district court ignored or slighted favorable evidence (limited convictions, family ties, employment, nonviolent current charge). The Tenth Circuit’s response implicitly makes several points:

• No requirement to explicitly weigh every favorable fact: The court need not catalog or explicitly balance every piece of favorable evidence on the record, so long as the essential statutory factors are addressed and the reasoning can be discerned.
• Reliance on unadjudicated conduct is permissible: Section 3142(g)(3)(A) expressly permits consideration of “past conduct” and “criminal history,” not just convictions. Thus, reliance on:
  • Dismissed charges (e.g., the 2023 shooting dismissed due to witness issues);
  • Pending or recent investigations (e.g., the homicide in which he was a person of interest); and
  • Unadjudicated firearm incidents;
  is proper when assessing dangerousness.
• Substance abuse and firearm patterns outweigh otherwise mitigating features: Even with community ties and employment, the pattern of drug use and firearm involvement within a violent gang context supports detention.

5. Appellate Posture and Deferential Fact Review

The decision underscores that appellate courts:

• Review the legal standard and overall detention decision de novo; but
• Review fact findings (e.g., gang affiliation, nature of prior incidents, credibility of law-enforcement testimony) only for clear error.

The Tenth Circuit reiterates its limited role: not to re-weigh evidence or substitute its judgment, but to ensure the district court’s findings are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Given this deferential standard, factual disputes about the degree of violence, current dangerousness, or the significance of gang affiliation are largely resolved in favor of the district court’s view.

C. Impact and Practical Implications

1. For District Courts: Level of Detail Required in Detention Orders

While not binding, United States v. Samilton provides a practical template for what the Tenth Circuit views as a sufficient detention order:

• Explicitly identify each § 3142(g) factor and state whether it favors detention or release;
• Briefly summarize the core facts supporting each factor (nature of the offense, strength of evidence, past conduct, and nature of danger);
• Conclude clearly that “no condition or combination of conditions” will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community; and
• Do not feel obliged to:
  • Rebut, one-by-one, specific conditions proposed by the defense, or
  • Discuss in detail the magistrate judge’s earlier decision or reasoning.

The decision thus confirms that district courts may issue relatively concise but well-structured orders without fear of reversal so long as the reasoning is clear and grounded in the statutory framework.

2. For Defense Counsel: Strategic Considerations

For defense attorneys, this decision signals several things:

• Focus on undermining the danger narrative, not just proposing conditions: Merely offering stringent conditions (such as GPS or home confinement) may be insufficient if the underlying pattern of dangerous behavior (guns, drugs, gang-related incidents) is strong. Defense counsel must:
  • Contest the factual basis of alleged prior incidents and gang ties;
  • Develop affirmative evidence of rehabilitation, cessation of gang involvement, or changed circumstances; and
  • Show concretely how proposed conditions will break any connection to violent networks or conduct.
• Challenge unadjudicated conduct with care: The opinion reaffirms that courts may consider uncharged or dismissed conduct; thus, defense efforts should focus on:
  • Attacking the reliability and specificity of the government’s evidence (e.g., hearsay, investigative gaps, alternative explanations); and
  • Highlighting the absence of corroboration or the age/remoteness of prior incidents.
• Make a robust record at the magistrate level: Because the district judge’s de novo review need not engage with each element of the magistrate’s reasoning, it is crucial for defense counsel to:
  • Create a detailed evidentiary record—including mitigation evidence—at the initial hearing; and
  • Ensure that favorable evidence is clearly presented and preserved for potential appellate review.

3. For Prosecutors: Building a Dangerousness Case

The opinion also offers guidance for the government:

• Patterns matter: Repeated firearm incidents, especially connected with drug use and gang feuds, can support a finding of danger even absent multiple convictions.
• Law enforcement testimony is critical: Detailed testimony about gang structure, ongoing feuds, specific shootings, and investigative leads (phone records, etc.) can be persuasive.
• Connect past conduct to future risk: Prosecutors should show how the defendant’s role in ongoing conflicts, continued drug use, and persistent access to firearms create a forward-looking risk that conditions cannot mitigate.

4. Substantive Law: Dangerousness in “Nonviolent” Firearm Offenses

Although the charged offense—possession of a firearm by a drug user—is technically nonviolent, the opinion reinforces a key theme in Bail Reform Act jurisprudence:

• Dangerousness is not limited to past acts of completed violence;
• Firearms plus illegal drugs, particularly in a gang context, can demonstrate a substantial risk of future violence; and
• The statutory label “nonviolent” does not preclude a finding that the defendant’s release poses serious danger.

5. Status as Nonprecedential but Persuasive Authority

The order is explicitly designated “not binding precedent” except under doctrines like law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Nonetheless, it may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.

Practically, this means:

• District judges and magistrate judges within the Tenth Circuit are not required to follow it, but may look to it for guidance; and
• Litigants can cite it in briefs to illustrate how the Tenth Circuit has applied § 3142(g) in similar factual circumstances, particularly when arguing about the sufficiency of detention findings and treatment of unadjudicated conduct.

V. Clarification of Complex Concepts and Terms

1. “Clear and Convincing Evidence”

This is an intermediate standard of proof:

• More demanding than “preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not);
• Less demanding than “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the standard for criminal convictions).

In the detention context, it requires the government to present evidence that persuades the court with a high degree of certainty that the defendant poses a danger that cannot be mitigated by conditions.

2. “De Novo” Review vs. “Clear Error”

• De novo review: The appellate (or reviewing) court looks at the legal question anew, without deference to the lower court’s conclusion. In this case, the Tenth Circuit reviews the ultimate detention decision de novo, but within the framework of the facts found by the district court.
• Clear error: Factual findings are upheld unless the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake was made. This is a highly deferential standard, under which reasonable factual choices by the district court are not disturbed.

3. “Pretrial Services Report”

A pretrial services report is prepared by the probation or pretrial services office. It typically contains:

• Criminal history;
• Employment and education;
• Family and community ties;
• Substance-abuse and mental-health information;
• Risk assessments and a recommendation (release vs. detention and suggested conditions).

Courts often rely heavily on these reports when making initial detention decisions.

4. “Adjudicated Delinquent”

This term refers to a juvenile who has been found by a juvenile court to have committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Here, a prior 2025 charge accused Samilton of possessing or carrying firearms as an adjudicated delinquent—reflecting prior juvenile adjudications.

5. “Deferred Sentence”

A deferred sentence generally means the defendant has pleaded guilty (or been found guilty), but the court postpones entry of a judgment of conviction and final sentence, often subject to conditions. If the defendant successfully completes the deferred period, the case may be dismissed; if not, the court can impose sentence.

In this case, the opinion notes that Samilton committed the new firearm offense while serving a deferred sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle and an on-foot police chase—an aggravating factor.

6. “Person of Interest”

“Person of interest” is an investigative label, not a formal charge. It indicates law enforcement believes the person may have information or involvement in a crime but has not yet been charged. Here, being a person of interest in an October 2025 homicide contributed to the court’s perception of ongoing risk, even without formal charges.

7. Gang Affiliation and Dangerousness

Courts often treat documented gang affiliation—especially in an active, violent gang—as an indicator of increased risk of violence. In this case:

• The Shotgun Crips gang was described as being engaged in a longstanding internal feud involving shootings and murders;
• Samilton’s family members were allegedly implicated in this feud;
• Several alleged shootings and the homicide investigation were connected to this gang conflict.

The court accepts this as probative of dangerousness, even in the absence of convictions for these incidents, emphasizing the predictive nature of the Bail Reform Act inquiry.

VI. Conclusion

United States v. Samilton reinforces and clarifies several important principles in federal pretrial detention practice under the Bail Reform Act:

• Dangerousness can be based on patterns, not just convictions: Courts may rely on past conduct, unadjudicated incidents, dismissed charges, and gang affiliation to find that a defendant poses a serious risk to community safety.
• “Nonviolent” firearm offenses can support detention: Even when the charged offense itself is nonviolent in a technical sense, the combination of drugs, firearms, and violent associations may justify detention.
• Sufficiency of detention findings: A district court need not write an extended opinion or rebut every proposed condition. It must:
  • Address the § 3142(g) factors;
  • Make clear factual findings; and
  • Articulate why no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure community safety.
  Concise but reasoned explanations are adequate to satisfy § 3142(i) and Fed. R. App. P. 9(a).
• De novo legal review and deferential factual review: Appellate courts review the ultimate detention decision de novo, but accord significant deference to the district court’s fact findings under the clear-error standard.

While nonprecedential, the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Samilton will likely be cited as persuasive authority in future detention disputes involving defendants with overlapping patterns of drug use, repeated firearm incidents, and gang involvement, especially where district courts issue relatively brief but structured detention orders. It underscores that, when the record depicts an ongoing, intertwined pattern of firearms, drugs, and violent networks, the Bail Reform Act permits and, indeed, encourages preventive detention to protect the community.