United States v. Nathaniel Degrave, 21-3030

Appellant Nathaniel J. Degrave was ordered detained pretrial by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 6, 2021; he appealed that detention order.
The district court found Degrave engaged in multiple assaults on police officers, forcibly cleared pathways for others to enter the Capitol, entered restricted spaces, and coordinated or planned violent actions on January 6, 2021.
The court also found post‑event obstructive conduct: Degrave lied to the FBI about his presence at the Capitol, deleted related social‑media communications, encouraged others to delete messages, and used encrypted messaging about January 6.
The district court concluded Degrave is eligible for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) based on a serious risk of obstructing a judicial proceeding and identified a risk of violence as an articulable threat to the community.
The court rejected proposed restrictive release conditions as insufficient to reasonably assure community safety and the integrity of the proceedings.
The D.C. Circuit, in a per curiam unpublished disposition under Fed. R. App. P. 36, affirmed the district court’s detention order.

Issue	Government's Argument	Degrave's Argument	Held
Eligibility for pretrial detention under § 3142(f)(2)(B) for risk of obstruction	Degrave’s conduct and post‑arrest efforts to obstruct make him eligible	Not eligible; no sufficient risk of obstruction	Affirmed — eligible for detention under § 3142(f)(2)(B)
Whether the court properly identified an articulable threat of violence	Degrave’s assaults and coordination posed an articulable threat	No articulable violent threat warranting preventive detention	Affirmed — court permissibly identified risk of violence as an articulable threat
Whether any conditions could reasonably assure safety or integrity of proceedings	No combination of conditions would suffice given assaults, coordination, and post‑arrest obstruction	Proposed restrictive conditions would mitigate risks	Affirmed — district court did not clearly err in finding conditions insufficient
Whether district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	Findings supported by record (assaults, coordination, deletions, false statements, encrypted messaging)	Challenges to factual findings	Affirmed — no clear error in district court’s findings

United States v. Singleton, 182 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (decision whether to hold a hearing may be made on limited information)
United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (preventive detention requires identification of an articulable threat; distinguishes attackers/planners from mere entrants)
United States v. Worrell, [citation="848 F. App'x 5"] (D.C. Cir. 2021) (upholding detention where defendant assaulted officers and coordinated violent actions)