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 v. Jenkins

United States District Court, W.D. New York

August 2, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ANDRE JENKINS a/k/a Little Bear, TIMOTHY ENIX a/k/a Blaze, FILIP CARUSO a/k/a Filly, EDGAR DEKAY, II a/k/a Ed a/k/a Special Ed, JASON WILLIAMS a/k/a Toop, THOMAS KOSZUTA a/k/a Kazoo, GREGORY WILLSON a/k/a Flip, EMMETT GREEN, ROBERT OSBORNE, JR., STANLEY OLEJNICZAK, JACK WOOD a/k/a Jake a/k/a Snake, RYAN MYRTLE, GLEN STACHARCZYCK a/k/a Turbo, Defendants, DAVID PIRK, THOMAS SCANLON a/k/a Tom, SEAN MCINDOO a/k/a Professor, Defendants-Appellants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          Elizabeth A. Wolford United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         The above-captioned matter involves 12 remaining defendants[1] named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) ("Indictment") returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. ("RICO"), in connection with the operation of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club ("KMC").

         Currently pending before the Court are the appeals of Defendants David Pirk ("Pirk"), Thomas Scanlon ("Scanlon"), and Sean Mclndoo ("Mclndoo") from Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer's Decision and Order (Dkt. 568) regarding non-dispositive pretrial motions. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the appeals, except to the extent that the appeals by Scanlon and Mclndoo challenge Magistrate Judge Roemer's decision to deny the unsealing of the search warrant affidavit, on which the Court reserves decision and schedules oral argument for August 16, 2017, to immediately follow the status conference at 11:00 A.M. on that date.

         BACKGROUND

         The Court initially referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Dkt. 35). In an effort to promote the expeditious.handling of the pretrial motions, the undersigned subsequently terminated the referral to Magistrate Judge Roemer of many of the pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss, for bills of particulars, and for severance. (Dkt. 446; Dkt. 473; Dkt. 534). Magistrate Judge Roemer agreed to decide all non-dispositive discovery motions and issue a report and recommendation on each suppression motion. (Dkt. 436).

         On December 7, 2016, Scanlon filed an omnibus pretrial motion, requesting, inter alia, the unsealing of the search warrant affidavit submitted in support of search warrants executed at the residence of co-defendant Jack Wood and six KMC clubhouses. (Dkt. 385 at 33-37). On January 10, 2017, the Government responded in opposition to Scanlon's motion. (Dkt. 437). On February 3, 2017, Scanlon filed a reply. (Dkt. 476).

         On December 7, 2016, Mclndoo filed an omnibus pretrial motion. (Dkt. 383). On January 11, 2017, he moved to join in the motions of his co-defendants (including Pirk and Scanlon)[2] to unseal the search warrant affidavit. (Dkt. 438). On January 20, 2017, the Government responded in opposition to Mclndoo's motion for discovery. (Dkt. 454). Mclndoo replied on February 3, 2017, (Dkt. 475), and the Government filed an additional response in opposition to the remainder of his pretrial motions on February 10, 2017. (Dkt. 492).

         On January 9, 2017, Pirk filed his omnibus pretrial motion, requesting, inter alia, disclosure of Brady material arising from the Government's prior investigation of the Chosen Few, a rival motorcycle club, from 2006 to 2008. (Dkt. 434 at ¶¶ 127-39). On February 6, 2017, the Government filed a response in opposition to Pirk's motion. (Dkt. 483 at 35-38). On March 22, 2017, Pirk filed a supplemental Brady request concerning the Chosen Few motorcycle club investigation. (Dkt. 543). On March 31, 2017, the Government filed a response in opposition to Pirk's supplemental motion. (Dkt. 550).

         Oral argument concerning the non-dispositive discovery motions filed by Pirk, Scanlon, and Mclndoo was held before Magistrate Judge Roemer on March 17, 2017. (Dkt. 536). On April 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roemer issued a Decision and Order resolving Defendants' non-dispositive discovery motions. (Dkt. 568).

         On May 10, 2017, this Court issued a Text Order requiring any appeals of Magistrate Judge Roemer's Decision and Order to be filed by May 30, 2017. (Dkt. 583). On May 30, 2017, Pirk and Scanlon each timely filed an appeal of Magistrate Judge Roemer's Decision and Order. (Dkt. 614 (Pirk); Dkt. 615 (Scanlon)). On May 31, 2017, Mclndoo filed his appeal. (Dkt. 616). The Government filed its memoranda in opposition to the appeals on June 28, 2017. (Dkt. 649 (Scanlon Opp.); Dkt. 650 (Pirk Opp.); Dkt. 651 (Mclndoo Opp.)). Scanlon filed a reply in further support of his appeal on July 14, 2017 (Dkt. 675), followed by a notice of supplemental authority on July 19, 2017 (Dkt. 677). The Government filed a response to the supplemental authority on July 20, 2017, as well as a motion to strike the supplemental authority, which the Court denied. (Dkt. 683; Dkt. 687). Mclndoo filed a reply on July 25, 2017. (Dkt. 694).

         DISCUSSION

         Because Defendants appeal to this Court from a non-dispositive Decision and Order issued by Magistrate Judge Roemer, in order to warrant reversal by this Court, they must demonstrate that the decision is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). '"A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" United States v. Feneziani, No. 05-CR-290E, 2007 WL 1613630, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 1, 2007) (quoting Garcia v. Teitler, AA3 F.3d 202, 211 (2d Cir. 2006)). "This standard is highly deferential, imposes a heavy burden on the objecting party, and only permits reversal where the magistrate judge abused his discretion." Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 954 F.Supp.2d 127, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quotations omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Verdiramo, 890 F.Supp.2d 257, 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("The clearly erroneous standard is highly deferential, and magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving non-dispositive disputes. . . ." (quotation omitted)).

         I. Pirk's Objection to the Denial of ...


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.