United States v. Parks
| Docket Number | 18-CR-251-GKF-1 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER R. PARKS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Before the Court is Defendant Christopher Parks' Motion to Rescind Order of Revocation and Detention and supplement in support (ECF No. 267, 270), which were referred by United States District Judge Gregory Frizzell. Defendant seeks relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), which governs motions to reopen detention proceedings, and 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), which governs motions for temporary release. The motion is denied.
Defendant was originally indicted on December 7, 2018. Defendant appeared by summons and was released on conditions pending his trial on December 19, 2018. By Superseding Indictment Defendant was charged in Count 1 with conspiracy to offer and pay, and solicit and receive health care kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 372; and in Count 25 with conspiring to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
Defendant is scheduled for a joint trial with co-Defendant Dr. Gary Lee. On June 28, 2022, Dr. Lee moved to continue the trial for one year from August 2022 to August 2023, based on his health condition. Defendant did not oppose the motion and executed a speedy trial waiver. Also on June 28, 2022, the United States moved to sever the trial of Defendant from the trial of Dr. Lee, arguing that delaying the trial for a full year would prejudice the United States and deprive the public of its interest in a speedy trial. Defendant objected to the United States' motion to sever, arguing that Dr. Lee's inability to testify at Defendant's trial would hinder his defense.
On June 29, 2022, United States District Judge Claire Eagan granted Dr. Lee's motion to continue the trial to permit him to undergo medical treatments and reset the trial for August 2023. ECF No. 212. On September 21, 2022, Defendant was indicted in the Eastern District of Texas for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, based on Defendant's alleged use of health care businesses to fraudulently bill insurance companies. On September 21, 2022, the case was reassigned to United States District Judge Gregory Frizzell, who made minor changes to the scheduling order but maintained the August 2023 trial date. ECF No. 226. On October 3, 2022, Judge Frizzell denied the United States' motion to sever. ECF No. 227.
On October 5, 2022, a Petition for Summons was issued by the undersigned based on the new charges against Defendant in the Eastern District of Texas. ECF No. 231. On October 10, 2022, the United States moved to revoke Defendant's bond. ECF Nos. 234, 238. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the undersigned revoked Defendant's bond and detained him pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148, ECF No. 250, and Judge Frizzell affirmed the undersigned's ruling following a de novo review in a thorough written decision, ECF No. 257.[1] Judge Frizzell explained certain evidence supporting the detention order, including that (1) Defendant is under indictment in Texas for fraudulent submissions to insurance companies that resulted in at least $15 million in payments, including time periods while Defendant was on pretrial release; (2) Defendant is the target of an investigation in Florida for alleged health care fraud and kickbacks for which Defendant's businesses have allegedly received reimbursements totaling approximately $28 million, including time periods while Defendant was on pretrial release; (3) Defendant signed credit agreements and guarantees without permission from the probation office while on pretrial release; and (4) Defendant often puts his businesses in the names of family members. ECF No. 257 at 2-6.
A detention hearing “may be reopened” before trial upon a finding 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).[2]
Defendant moves to reopen based on the following new information: (1) an update to a DOJ policy; (2) a potential delay of the August 2023 trial date; (3) a hernia diagnosis, and his susceptibility to COVID due to his age and obesity; (4) his willingness to abide by conditions of pretrial release and pledge his home as collateral; (5) the pretrial release conditions of other defendants accused of financial crimes, ECF No. 267 at 12-16; and (6) his desire to attend to his family due to the death of his brother-in-law and recent stroke of his brother, ECF No. 270.
The DOJ policy relied on by Defendant provides that prosecutors “should not seek detention merely because the Bail Reform Act permits such an argument to be made or presumes the detention, based on the charges, is appropriate,” and should not seek detention “based solely upon the fact that the alleged violation is of the conditions of post-conviction supervision.” DOJ Manual § 9-6.100. Instead, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, after a weighing of all the facts and circumstances. Id.
The Court finds no indication the United States failed to engage in a case-specific analysis in seeking revocation. Instead, the United States sought revocation and detention only after it concluded Defendant posed an ongoing risk of financial danger to the community and was unlikely to abide by conditions aimed at protecting the community. The United States represents that it would still seek revocation and detention even considering this new policy. The new policy does not have a material bearing on the Court's detention analysis.
The Court finds that potential further trial delays do not warrant reopening the revocation proceeding. According to Defendant, Dr. Lee has not started medical treatments and it is therefore “unlikely that a trial can be conducted in 2023.” ECF No. 267 at 9. However, this is entirely speculative. Dr. Lee has not filed a motion, the United States will likely oppose any such motion, Defendant may oppose the motion, and Judge Frizzell has not yet granted a continuance. At this point, there are no new circumstances related to trial delays that warrant reopening the detention decision.
Defendant also argues that his recent hernia diagnosis, his COVID susceptibility, his willingness to pledge his house and abide by stricter conditions, the release conditions of other defendants accused of financial crimes, and his need to attend to his family during times of need also warrant reopening the detention proceeding. None of these facts, even if proven at an evidentiary hearing, constitute new information that has a material bearing on the Court's revocation analysis.
Defendant states that he desires a CT scan of his hernia to determine its level of severity, because he formerly had a strangulated hernia that caused severe health complications. However, Defendant does not make any particularized request for release for a scan on a specific date or with a particular physician. Instead, Defendant requests reopening the proceeding to determine whether he should be released for the entire remaining period before his trial. Although the Court accepts as true that Defendant cannot receive the scan in custody, this does not justify the broad relief Defendant seeks. This medical condition does not overcome the financial risks posed by Defendant's release or warrant reopening the proceeding. The Court has no reason to believe that the hernia condition would require long-term hospitalization or otherwise reduce the risks of Defendant forming new companies, violating conditions, and posing a significant financial danger to the community, as already found by the Court.
Defendant also cites his susceptibility to COVID-19 due to his age and obesity, and argues that his detention facility no longer has any protocol in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, as argued by the United States, CoreCivic's website specifically provides a link to updates on their COVID-19 response through a weekly blog. See https://www.corecivic.com/covid-19-response, last visited February 14, 2023. Even assuming the jail is not taking certain precautions, Defendant admits that he has already contracted COVID-19 and has recovered. This weighs against a finding that his risk factors warrant release. See United States v. Rudolph, 582 F.Supp.3d 804, 818 (D. Colo. 2022) (). Further, as noted by a court in this circuit, the pandemic is now at a stage where vaccines have proven effective at reducing the severity of COVD-19, and there is a “growing consensus” that either receiving or refusing the vaccine weigh against a finding of extraordinary circumstances in the “analogous compassionate release context.” Id. at 818 n.7 (citing United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 936 n.2 (10th Cir. 2021)). The Court does not find that Defendant's COVID-19 susceptibility, or policies at his detention facility, have a material bearing on the issue of revocation.
The affidavits from Defendant and his wife state a willingness to pledge their residence worth approximately $750,000 as security for his compliance. Defendant also assures the Court he will not operate businesses or have signatory authority over bank accounts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial