United States v. Noel (ECF No. 23)

Page 2

The Defendant was arrested and made his initial appearance on January 22, 2026. Dkt. No. 11. At that hearing, the Government was represented by Angela Tyson-Floyd, Esq., AUSA, and the Defendant was represented by Matthew Campbell, Esq., FPD. During the initial appearance, the Court advised the Government to file its detention motion by January 26, 2026, and scheduled the detention hearing for January 27, 2026. The Government filed its motion for detention on January 25, 2026. Dkt. No. 15. On January 26, 2026, the Defendant filed an Emergency Motion to Cancel the Detention Hearing. Dkt. No. 17. The Court granted the motion and advised the parties that it would resolve the Government's Motion for Detention on the written submissions. Dkt. No. 18.

I. The Motion for Detention

The Government seeks the Defendant's detention pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f)(1)(A) and (E),¹asserting that he poses a danger to the community. Dkt. No. 15. According to the Government, the charged conduct arises from an incident that occurred on the night of February 28, 2025, in Frederiksted, St. Croix. Id. at 1. At approximately 10:48 p.m., a ShotSpotter alert registered multiple gunshots fired on Market Street in the vicinity

1 Section 3142(f)(1)(A) permits the Government to seek a detention hearing in cases involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A). Section 3142(f)(1)(E) separately authorizes a detention hearing in any felony case involving the possession or use of a firearm.

Page 3

of the CiBone Restaurant. Id. The Government states that a review of surveillance footage and subsequent witness interviews revealed that three individuals exited a Jeep SUV, approached the front of the restaurant, and directed threats toward two identified individuals. Id. The Government asserts that the individuals were identified as Donnie Heywood, Lijsabbatical Henry, and the Defendant. Id.

The Government represents that during this encounter, the Defendant appeared to have a firearm concealed at his waist and made statements referencing his "fully," which agents interpret, based on their training and experience, as a reference to a fully automatic firearm. Id. at 2. After the threats were made, the three individuals returned to the Jeep and drove away from the scene. Id. As the vehicle departed, and while the rear passenger door remained open, the Defendant was observed holding a firearm, pointing it into the air, and discharging at least one round, followed shortly thereafter by additional shots as the vehicle continued to flee. Id.

Virgin Islands Police Department officers responded to the scene, interviewed the identified victims, and recovered shell casings from the area where the shots were fired. Id. The Government asserts that all three individuals were charged with territorial offenses arising from the threats and the shooting incident. Id.

The Government further asserts that on May 9, 2025, law enforcement executed an arrest warrant for the Defendant during a traffic stop. Id. The Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle, which was driven by the mother of one of his alleged associates. Id. Because the

Page 4

vehicle was not registered or insured, officers conducted an inventory search and recovered a 9mm firearm from beneath the seat where the Defendant had been sitting. Id. at 2-3. According to the Government, the firearm was modified to fire automatically, allowing multiple rounds to be discharged with a single pull of the trigger. Id. During a post-arrest interview conducted the same day, the Defendant allegedly admitted ownership of the firearm and stated that he had placed it under the seat earlier that day. Id. at 3. He further stated that he had acquired the firearm earlier in the year. Id. The Government also represents that the Defendant does not possess a license to lawfully carry a firearm in the Virgin Islands. Id.

The Government states that law enforcement test-fired the recovered firearm and submitted the shell casings to the ATF's National Integrated Ballistic Information Network. Id. Preliminary testing linked the firearm to the February 28, 2025 shooting at the CiBone Restaurant, as well as to several other shooting incidents, two of which resulted in deaths. Id. at 5-6.

The Government also represents that several cellular phones were seized at the time of the Defendant's arrest and later searched pursuant to a warrant. Id. at 4. Data extracted from the Defendant's phone allegedly includes photographs and videos of him holding a firearm with "the exact same characteristics" as the weapon recovered during the traffic stop. Id. In those recordings, the Defendant is heard referring to the firearm as his "fully,"

Page 5

which the Government asserts is the same terminology used during the February 28, 2025 incident. Id.

The Government further asserts that the Defendant is affiliated with individuals whom it characterizes as part of a violent gang involved in an ongoing conflict with a rival group resulting in multiple shootings, including incidents occurring in broad daylight and resulting in several deaths. Id. at 5-6. According to the Government, this alleged affiliation, combined with the charged conduct, reflects a lack of stabilizing influences and contributes to the danger the Defendant poses to the community. Id. at 7-8.

Based on these allegations, the Government argues that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) weigh in favor of detention, citing the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, the strength of the evidence, the Defendant's alleged history and characteristics, and the danger his release would pose to the community. Id. As previously noted above, the Defendant, withdrew his request for a detention hearing and did not oppose the Government's Motion for Detention. Id. The Defendant did not submit evidence or argument in support of release. Instead, he expressly represented that his motion "effectively concurs with the Government's Motion for Detention." Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Under the Bail Reform Act, a detention hearing shall be authorized in cases that fall within the categories set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Section 3142(f) authorizes the

Page 6

Government to seek detention in certain enumerated offenses, including among other things, crimes of violence and felony offenses involving the possession or use of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f)(1)(A), (E). If a detention hearing is authorized under § 3142(f), the Court must then determine whether any "condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the persons as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).

In making this determination of whether any conditions of release can reasonably assure a defendant's appearance and the safety of others, the Court must consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g):

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person including—

(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and

(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). "To justify pretrial detention, the [G]overnment must prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence." United States v. Kanawati, No. 2008-7, 2008 WL 1969964, at *2 (D.V.I. May 5, 2008) (citing, e.g., United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d

Page 7

156, 160-61 (3d Cir. 1986) and United States v. Traitz, 807 F.2d 322, 324 (3d Cir. 1986)) (citation modified).

However, because the Defendant is charged with discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),²a rebuttable presumption applies that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). The Defendant did not challenge the presumption or present any evidence to rebut it, and therefore, it is presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. Nevertheless, the presumption does not relieve the Government of its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that detention is warranted. United States v. Carbone, 793 F.2d 559, 560 (3d Cir. 1986).

II. Danger to the Community

Although the Defendant withdrew his request for a detention hearing and did not oppose detention, the Court must still evaluate the § 3142(g) factors to determine whether the Government has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant's release would pose a danger to the community. See, e.g., United States v. Cabrera Ortiz, No.

Page 8

3:24-cr-00016, 2024 WL 3673737, at *7 (D.V.I. Aug. 5, 2024); Kanawati, 2008 WL 1969964, at *2; Carbone, 793 F.2d at 560.

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The nature and circumstances of three of the offenses with which the Defendant is charged—illegal possession of a machine gun, discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and unauthorized possession of a firearm during a crime of violence— are extremely serious and in the Court's view, weigh very heavily against release. See United States v. Liz, No. 23-cr-0006, 2024 WL 2892206, at *4 (D.V.I. June 10, 2024) (concluding that firearms offenses are serious crimes and citing cases); see also United States v. Thomas, No. 2008-0020, 2009 WL 2996532, at *4 (D.V.I. Sept. 16, 2009) (stating that "users of firearms in commission of crimes of violence are dangerous in a very real sense" and holding that pretrial detention was warranted). Therefore, considering the offenses the Defendant is charged with and the factual circumstances giving rise to those charges—as discussed below—this factor weighs strongly in favor of detention.

B. Weight of the Evidence

The weight of the evidence also supports detention. According to the Government, the February 28, 2025 incident involved threats and the discharge of multiple firearm rounds near the CiBone restaurant. Witnesses identified the Defendant as one of the individuals involved in the incident, shell casings were recovered from the scene, and surveillance footage of the incident captures the underlying conduct involving the Defendant. Following

Page 9

that incident, the Defendant was later subjected to a traffic stop. During that stop, law enforcement recovered a firearm from beneath the seat where the Defendant was sitting. The firearm was modified to fire automatically, and at a subsequent interview the Defendant admitted ownership of the weapon. Images and videos recovered from the Defendant's phone depict him holding a firearm with the same characteristics as the weapon recovered during the traffic stop. The Government additionally represents that preliminary ballistic testing links the recovered firearm not only to the February 28, 2025 shooting, but also to approximately eight other shooting incidents, two of which resulted in deaths. Taken together, this evidence provides substantial support for the charged conduct. Where the weight of the evidence is strong, that factor militates in favor of detention. United States v. Flanders, No. 201-29, 2010 WL 4054442, at *8 (D.V.I. Oct. 15, 2010).

C. Defendant's History and Characteristics

The Defendant's criminal history reflects a prior conviction for Burglary in the First Degree, for which the Defendant was initially sentenced to probation. That probation was later revoked, resulting in a term of incarceration. This history is relevant to the statutory inquiry insofar as it reflects the Defendant's prior experience with court supervision and his ability to comply with court-ordered conditions. United States v. Thomas, No. 15-249, 2016 WL 890583, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2016). The Court also considers the Defendant's alleged association with other individuals involved in the underlying conduct and other violent incidents in the community, as reflected in the record before the Court. This information is

Page 10

considered only insofar as it relates to the Defendant's history and characteristics and the surrounding circumstances of the charged conduct, and not as an independent basis for detention. The Court further considers that the Defendant remains in local custody on charges arising from the same underlying conduct at issue here. This fact is relevant to the Court's assessment of the Defendant's history and characteristics, including his prior experience with court supervision.

The Defendant's history and characteristics further indicates that the Defendant is unemployed, has no verified income or assets, lacks stable housing, and did not propose a third-party custodian or supervision plan. The Defendant also advised Pretrial Services that he does not have a fixed residence. These facts bear directly on the Court's assessment of the Defendant's personal circumstances and the availability of conditions that could reasonably ensure compliance with release requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Payne, No. CR 2017- 0031, 2018 WL 3546231, at *8 (D.V.I. July 23, 2018); United States v. Wrensford, No. 2012- 0012, 2012 WL 6028628, at *4 (D.V.I. Dec. 4, 2012) (cases in which verified employment, stable housing, and strong community ties supported release). Therefore, the absence of circumstances suggesting that conditions of release would meaningfully mitigate the risk posed by his release further supports the Court's conclusion that this factor also weighs in favor of detention. See, e.g., Payne, 2018 WL 3546231, at *8 ; Wrensford, 2012 WL 6028628, at *4.

Page 11

D. Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to any Person or the Community

The final § 3142(g) factor decisively favors detention. The firearm allegedly recovered from the Defendant was modified to fire automatically, a feature that substantially increases the danger to the public by enabling the rapid discharge of multiple rounds in a short period of time. The Government further asserts that the firearm is linked not only to the charged incident, but to multiple other shootings. The alleged threats directed at identified individuals, the subsequent discharge of a firearm in a public area, and the asserted forensic linkage between the Defendant and a modified automatic weapon—which the Government further represents is linked to approximately eight shootings, two of which resulted in deaths—support the conclusion that, based on the record presently before the Court, the Defendant's release would pose a serious and ongoing danger to the community. See United States v. Evans, No. CR 17-207, 2018 WL 317958, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018) (detention warranted where firearm possession in a public setting created a serious risk to community safety).

III. Conclusion

Having considered the record herein, and assessing the § 3142(g) factors, the Court finds that the Government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant is a danger to the community and that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the . . . safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).

Page 12

Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:

1. The Government's Motion for Detention, Dkt. No. 15, seeking to detain the Defendant pending trial, is GRANTED.

2. The Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

3. The Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

4. Upon order of a Court of the United States or upon request of an attorney for the Government, the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall deliver the Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of appearance in connection with a Court proceeding.

5. This matter may be reopened by the Defendant at a later date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) if new evidence develops.

ENTER:

Dated: February 5, 2026 /s/ Emile A. Henderson III

EMILE A. HENDERSON III

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE