United States v. Al HaydariUnited States v. Al Haydari
Before the Court is Defendant Abbas Al Othman’s motion to vacate order of detention and reinstate his pretrial release (Dkt. 149).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
A grand jury indicted Al Othman for conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle or vehicles, in violation of
Magistrate Judge Patti held a revocation hearing on February 25, 2026, at which both parties proffered evidence in support of their respective positions. At the conclusion of the detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Patti found probable cause that Al Othman had committed a crime on bond. 2/26/26 Order at PageID.531 (Dkt. 136). He further found that Al Othman had not rebutted the presumption that he was not a danger to the community. Id.2 He further concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no combination of conditions that would assure that Al Othman would not flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community; he finally found that Al Othman was unlikely to abide by any combination of conditions of release. Id. at PageID.532. Al Othman’s motion asks the Court to review that decision to revoke pretrial release on these bases. See Mot.
II. ANALYSIS
The Bail Reform Act provides that, upon finding probable cause that a person violated a release order by committing a new crime, a court “shall” revoke release if it finds either that that no combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the community, or the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of release.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Government has established probable cause that, while on bond, Al Othman committed a felony—aiding and abetting the transportation
Al Othman objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Government established probable cause that he aided and abetted the transportation of stolen vehicles while on bond. Mot. at PageID.640. He argues that he could not have aided and abetted because it would have required him to be “physical[ly] present” at four parking lots where the Government alleges the stolen vehicles were stored and his GPS monitor never showed that he was present in those areas while he was on bond. Id. at 643. Further, Al Othman suffers from “severe physical injuries and chronic pain” which precludes him from the “labor-intensive process” of loading vehicles in containers. Id. at PageID.641. The Magistrate Judge considered and disregarded similar arguments. There is no requirement that Al Othman be physically moving cars into shipping containers to find probable cause of aiding and abetting. See Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 73 (2014) (“In proscribing aiding and abetting, Congress used language that comprehends all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence—even if that aid relates to only one (or some) of a crime’s phases or elements.”) (punctuation modified).
Given the Court’s probable cause finding that Al Othman committed a new felony, the presumption in favor of revocation of bond is triggered and Al Othman must “come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumption.” United States v. Gentry, No. 98-1494, 1998 WL 476200, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 3, 1998) (punctuation modified). “Moreover, even if the defendant comes forward with evidence to rebut the presumption, the presumption does not disappear, but remains a factor for consideration in the ultimate release or detention determination.” Id. (punctuation modified).
Al Othman executed a bond wherein he promised to comply with all conditions of release, including refraining from committing new offenses. 9/9/25 Release Order at PageID.149. Independent of the presumption, his actions while on release demonstrate the danger he presents to the community and the unlikelihood of future compliance with conditions.
At the hearing on the motion, Al Othman mentioned that a healthcare professional at the prison told him that he needed surgery to correct a hernia. The United States Marshals Service understands its obligations to arrange for appropriate medical care for its inmates. Al Othman’s need for surgery is not a basis for bond.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Al Othman’s motion to vacate order of detention is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2026
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court‘s ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 5, 2026.
s/Joseph Heacox
JOSEPH HEACOX
Case Manager