USG Filing II

Case 1:21-cr-00129-ABJ Document 32 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: Case No. 21-cr-129 (ABJ)
v. :
:
GABRIEL AUGUSTIN GARCIA, :
also known as “Gabriel Agustin Garcia,” :
:
Defendant. :
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL RELEASE CONDITIONS
The United States, by and through its attorney, the Acting United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, respectfully submits this opposition to Defendant Gabriel Garcia’s (the
“Defendant”) “Motion to Modify Pretrial Release Conditions of GPS Monitor Due to Chance in
Circumstances,” filed through counsel on September 1, 2021 (ECF No. 30). In support of his
motion to modify, the Defendant proffers a change of circumstances stemming from the “constant
danger the GPS monitor poses for his type of work.” These circumstances, the Defendant argues,
provide sufficient grounds for this Court to grant his request for modification
The government asks that the conditions of release remain the same. The Defendant has
shown a willingness to travel across state lines to engage in belligerent and obstructive behavior.
The Defendant’s heightened conditions of release based on that conduct is entirely appropriate.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Defendant is charged in a six-count Indictment for offenses committed at the U.S.
Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. In short, the Defendant took part in an aggressive
confrontation with U.S. Capitol Police Officers in the Crypt area of the U.S. Capitol Building
wherein the Defendant positioned himself at the front of the police line and incited the crowd
1
behind him, saying things such as “storm this shit” between shouting at the officers and calling
them “fucking traitors.” After the crowd breached the line of officers, the Defendant moved to the
Rotunda, where he asked “Nancy” to “come out and play.”
The government investigation has revealed that the Defendant is a member of the Proud
Boys organization, and that the Defendant – along with several Proud Boys - has taken part in at
least one additional hostile demonstration in Washington, D.C. before the January 6, 2021 Capitol
Riots. 1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Defendant was arrested on January 19, 2021 in his home state of Florida pursuant to a
Complaint and Arrest Warrant issued by Magistrate Judge Meriweather. 2 On that same date, the
Defendant appeared in the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant waived the removal hearing
and was ordered removed to the District of Columbia.
At the Defendant’s initial appearance in the District of Columbia on February 2, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Meriweather granted, over defense objection, the government’s oral motion for
GPS monitoring. A curfew was also imposed, from 10:00om to 6:00am. See Minute Order
2/2/2021; see also ECF No. 9.
The Defendant appealed the ruling, seeking removal of the GPS and curfew conditions.
See ECF No. 10. After a hearing on February 17, 2021, the Honorable Chief Judge Howell denied
the Defendant’s motion. See Minute Order 2/17/2021.
The Defendant has previously sought limited modification of his conditions of release in
1 Evidence was found as part of the government’s review of the Defendant’s Facebook account, as well as his cellular
phone. Both the phone and the Facebook account have been disclosed to defense.
2
US v. Gabriel Garcia, 21-mj-95 (RMM)
.
2
order to attend a funeral and to travel for work. See ECF No. 13, 19. Aside from the complete
removal of the Defendant’s monitor, the government has not objected to those requests.
Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant’s unopposed motions. See Minute Order 3/12/2021,
Minute Order 4/21/2011.
The Defendant has once before moved for modification of his release conditions, seeking,
inter alia, removal of his curfew and the GPS requirement due to a change in circumstances. See
ECF No. 22. This Court removed the curfew but kept the GPS requirement. See Minute Order
5/5/2021.
On June 10, 2021, the Pretrial Services Agency (“PSA”) provided an update regarding the
Defendant’s compliance with his release conditions. See ECF No. 24. In that report, the probation
officer noted that the Defendant had been less that forthcoming in his willingness to provide the
required documentation substantiating his court-approved travel outside of his home jurisdiction.
The probation officer also noted that, according to GPS data, the trip itself did not appear to be
work-related and that the GPS data was inconsistent with the Defendant’s statements. The PSA
did not request any action from the Court.
In a report dated July 12, 2021, PSA noted no known violations of release conditions. See
ECF No.25.
The undersigned has confirmed with the local probation officer in Miami that the
Defendant has not raised any concerns about the GPS monitor posing a safety hazard. The
undersigned has also conferred with Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia and
confirmed that the PSA opposes the removal of the GPS condition.
ARGUMENT
A person may file a motion for amendment of conditions of release to the Court having
3
jurisdiction over the offense where the release conditions were set by a Magistrate Judge. See 18
U.S.C. § 3145(a)(2). Modifications are generally grounded in new information or a change in
circumstances that would merit such a modification. See e.g. United States v. Hebron, No.
CRIM.A. 97-178 (TAF), 1997 WL 280568, at *1 (D.D.C. May 22, 1997); accord United States v.
Bikundi, 73 F. Supp. 3d 51, 54 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B)).
As to a change in circumstances, the Defendant echoes his concerns from his May 3, 2021
motion (ECF No. 22), that the ankle monitor poses a safety hazard and that the fact that he is being
electronically monitoring is embarrassing – it sometimes goes off when he’s speaking to potential
clients. Given the change in circumstances, along with his lack of criminal history, the Defendant
claims that there are less restrictive means that could ensure the safety of the community.
The government has no doubt that, in addition to the general inconvenience (and even
embarrassment) of GPS monitoring, the Defendant’s business is affected. Nonetheless, there is no
new development in the Defendant’s situation that would affect this Court’s assessment of the
“least restrictive” conditions of release that “will reasonably assure … the safety of any other
person and the community. See Henry, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 133 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)). The
circumstances proffered by the Defendant do not provide this Court with any assurances that the
Defendant no longer poses a danger to the community.
Furthermore, the Defendant’s “compliance - even model compliance - with the Court’s
requirements is not enough to warrant adjustment of [the defendant’s] pretrial release
conditions.” United States v. Henry, 314 F. Supp. 3d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2018). The fact that the
Defendant has no criminal history and has clear ties to his community supports his argument that
he is not such a significant flight risk such that he should be detained pending trial, but does not
address the efficacy of the GPS monitoring in its mitigation of the Defendant’s danger to the
4
community. Continued GPS monitoring allows the PSA to assess compliance with important
conditions of release, such as remaining within the Southern District of Florida and staying out of
the District of Columbia. January 6, 2021 was not a one-off for the Defendant. He has a
demonstrated willingness to travel across state lines for the purpose of aggressive confrontation.
The government has never sought this Defendant’s detention pending trial in this case, as
it is the government’s position that conditions could be fashioned to assure his return to court and
that would assure the safety of the community. However, releasing the Defendant to mere personal
recognizance belies the plain fact that he unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the process
designed to effectuate the peaceful transition of power, engaged in obstructive acts against law
enforcement while inside the Capitol, and celebrated these crimes throughout the day. That the
Defendant has heightened conditions of release based on that conduct is entirely appropriate.
In sum, the Defendant has not raised any novel issue that merits any meaningful change of
his release conditions, conditions that are certainly reasonable in light of his conduct and his risk
of danger to the community. For that reason and for the reasons listed herein, the government
respectfully requests the Court deny the Defendant’s motion.
Respectfully submitted,
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
Acting United States Attorney
D.C. Bar Number 415793
By: /s/ Angela N. Buckner

Angela N. Buckner
DC Bar #1022880
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 252-2656

USG Filing II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USG Filing II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USG Filing II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cr-00129-ABJ Document 32 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

Rotunda, where he asked “Nancy” to “come out and play.”

and was ordered removed to the District of Columbia.

At the Defendant’s initial appearance in the District of Columbia on February 2, 2021,

2/2/2021; see also ECF No. 9.

the Defendant’s motion. See Minute Order 2/17/2021.

Minute Order 4/21/2011.

did not request any action from the Court.

U.S.C. § 3145(a)(2). Modifications are generally grounded in new information or a change in

Bikundi, 73 F. Supp. 3d 51, 54 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B)).

embarrassment) of GPS monitoring, the Defendant’s business is affected. Nonetheless, there is no

Defendant no longer poses a danger to the community.

requirements is not enough to warrant adjustment of [the defendant’s] pretrial release

respectfully requests the Court deny the Defendant’s motion.

By: /s/ Angela N. Buckner

You might also like