United States v Kevin Lowe et al Detention Memo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  X  
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
  - v. – 
 
KEVIN LOWE, 
DAVID MOODY, 
RASHAWN WHIDBEE,  
   a/k/a “Ra-Ra,” 
ROBERT WILLIAMS, 
   a/k/a “Crusader Rob,” 
DONALD CARR,  
   a/k/a “Buster,” 
GEORGE BARROW, 
   a/k/a “Coco,” 
BRADLEY MITCHELL, 
ELIJAH PINCKNEY, 
EVELYN WHITE, 
CEDRIC WHITE, 
   a/k/a “Sin,” 
SHEILA CARTER, 
RAVELO MANZANILLO, 
   a/k/a “Grande,” 
JONATHAN HUERTAS, 
OLGA MENDOZA DELAROSA, 
BRYAN RIVERA, 
SAMANTHA LIVINGSTON, 
BRIDGET HIGGINS, 
DAVID STEWART, 
   a/k/a “Cash Money,” 
   a/k/a “Pork Chop,” 
VOKART ALSAIDI, 
KENRICK CHANDLER, 
   a/k/a “Booby,” 
DARRYL BRATHWAITE, 
THEODORE ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, 
   a/k/a “Top,” 
WALEED ALSAIDI, 
RONALD CARR, 
 
                   Defendants. 

: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 

DETENTION MEMO  
 
 
14 Cr. 055 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x  
 



 
 

2 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE 
DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

The Government respectfully submits the following in 

support of its anticipated application to detain certain of the 

twenty-four defendants named in the above-captioned Indictment 

(the “defendants”).  Below, the Government highlights certain 

issues relevant to all defendants.  

I. Background 

As set forth more fully in the Indictment, a copy of 

which is attached hereto, the defendants are all charged with 

participating in a massive drug distribution ring involving the 

prescription pain killer oxycodone.  Oxycodone is a highly 

addictive, prescription narcotic-strength opioid used to treat 

severe and chronic pain conditions.  The misuse of prescriptions 

painkillers such as oxycodone leads to as many as 500,000 annual 

emergency room visits.  In fact, the number of prescription 

painkiller overdose deaths is now greater than the number of 

overdose deaths from heroin and cocaine combined.   

Oxycodone prescriptions have enormous cash value to 

street level drug dealers, who can fill the prescriptions at 

most pharmacies and resell the resulting pills at vastly 

inflated rates.  Indeed, a single prescription for 180 30-

milligram oxycodone pills has an average resale value in New 

York City of more than $6,000, and up to $18,000 in nearby 

states.    



 
 

3 

The conspiracy charged in the Indictment involved the 

unlawful diversion and trafficking of millions of oxycodone 

tablets.  The operations of the alleged drug distribution ring 

were centered at “Astramed,” a purported pain management clinic 

with several locations in the Bronx, including a primary 

location on Southern Boulevard (the “Clinic”) and another 

location on Westchester Avenue in the Bronx (the “Westchester 

Ave. Office”).  The conspiracy involved doctors, Clinic 

employees, and drug traffickers who managed crews of “patients,” 

sending them into the Clinic to obtain medically unnecessary 

prescriptions.    

Essential to this illegal distribution conspiracy were 

corrupt, Board certified, state licensed doctors who, in 

exchange for cash, were willing to write medically unnecessary 

prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone (the “Doctors”).  

The Clinic typically charged $300 in cash for “doctor visits” 

that usually lasted just a minute or two, involved no actual 

physical examination, and consistently resulted in the issuance 

of a prescription for large doses of oxycodone, typically 180 

30-milligram tablets, or a daily dosage of six 30-milligram 

tablets.   

The Clinic itself bears little resemblance to a 

standard medical office.  For example, on a daily basis, crowds 

of up to one hundred people gathered outside the Clinic, 



 
 

4 

clamoring to see one of the Doctors and thereby get a 

prescription for oxycodone.  The majority of these individuals 

had no medical need for oxycodone, or any legitimate medical 

record documenting an ailment for which oxycodone would be 

prescribed.  Instead, most of these individuals were members of 

“crews” – that is, they were recruited and paid by high-level 

drug traffickers (the “Crew Chiefs”) to pose as “patients” in 

order to receive medically unnecessary prescriptions from the 

Doctors.  The Crew Chiefs then arranged for and oversaw the 

filling of the resulting prescription at various pharmacies and 

took possession of the oxycodone pills for resale.  Crew Chiefs 

also paid the Clinic’s employees hundreds of dollars in cash at 

a time to get their Crew Members into the Clinic to see one of 

the Doctors.  The Crew Chiefs maintained their joint control 

over the operations of the Clinic in part as a result of 

intimidation and the threat of violence. 

In total, between in or around January 2011 and in or 

around January 2014, Astramed Doctors wrote approximately 31,500 

medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone, comprising 

nearly 5.5 million oxycodone tablets with a street value of up 

to $550 million.  Astramed’s owner, DR. KEVIN LOWE, the 

defendant, alone collected nearly $12 million in fees for 

“doctor visits” made by Crew Members during this time period. 

 
 
 



 
 

5 

II. Applicable Law 

The Indictment charges various defendants with conspiring 

to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a 

controlled substance in violation of Title 21, United States 

Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).  Count One carries a 

maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.  Accordingly, Count 

One carries a statutory presumption that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s 

appearance in court and the safety of the community.  18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(e)(3)(A).  Because the statutory presumption of Section 

3142(e)(3)(A) is triggered here, the defendants bear the burden 

of producing sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.  See 

United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007); see 

also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 

1986).   

In determining whether a defendant has rebutted that 

statutory presumption, courts are instructed to consider:  (1) 

the nature and circumstances of the crime charged; (2) the 

weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history 

and characteristics of the defendant, including family ties, 

employment, community ties, past conduct; and (4) the nature and 

seriousness of the danger to the community or to an individual.  

See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1).  Even where a defendant produces 

sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 



 
 

6 

detention, the presumption does not disappear, instead it 

becomes a factor to be weighed and considered like all the 

others in deciding whether to release the defendant.  See United 

States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991).   

If a defendant meets the burden of production, the 

ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the Government, which 

must establish either (1) by a preponderance of evidence that 

the defendant is a flight risk and no condition or combination 

of conditions will assure his appearance in court, or (2) by 

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger 

to any other person or the community.  For purposes of the bail 

statute, the concept of dangerousness includes “the danger that 

the defendant might engage in criminal activity to the detriment 

of the community.”  United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 

(2d Cir. 1993).  Notably, danger to the community includes “the 

harm to society caused by [the likelihood of continued] 

narcotics trafficking.”  United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 81 

(2d Cir. 1985). 

III. Discussion 

While the Court’s bail determination is obviously unique 

to each defendant – and the Government certainly anticipates 

making defendant-specific presentations – below the Government 

highlights certain factors likely to be relevant to all 



 
 

7 

defendants and that may not be apparent from the face of the 

Indictment: 

A. Risk of Flight 

With respect to the risk of flight, factors such as the 

strength of the Government’s case and the exposure each 

defendant is likely to face upon conviction all counsel in favor 

of detention for many of the charged defendants. 

1. Strength of the Government’s Case    

The Indictment is the result of an extensive 

investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York and the Tactical Diversion Squad 

of the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (“DEA Task 

Force”).  To date, the investigation has involved the use of at 

least a dozen cooperating sources, confidential informants and 

undercover agents; thousands of hours of surveillance, much of 

it recorded; multiple search warrants of premises associated 

with the drug diversion scheme, including the Astramed clinic 

itself; and extensive analysis of prescription records obtained 

from the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. 

As a result of that extensive investigation, the evidence 

against the defendants is both varied and strong.  It includes, 

among other things: 

(a) Consensual recordings made by undercover agents 
posing as “patients” that expose the internal 
dealings of the Clinic as well as the sham “doctor 
visits” which invariably led to the issuance of 
oxycodone prescriptions. 



 
 

8 

 
(b) Consensual recordings involving Crew Chiefs 

discussing, among other things, the use of 
“patients;” the payment or receipt of cash in 
exchange for getting new “patients” in to see a 
Doctor; fees associated with obtaining urine 
samples; and the use of intimidation to maintain 
control over the defendants’ access to the Clinic. 

   
(c) Records documenting the tens of thousands of 

medically unnecessary prescriptions written by 
Clinic Doctors, who averaged more than 200 such 
prescriptions each week and who, on occasion, wrote 
well over 100 oxycodone prescriptions in a single 
day. 

 
(d) Hundreds of hours of surveillance, much of them 

recorded, that capture virtually every aspect of the 
scheme, including the defendants’ daily presence at 
the Clinic escorting “patients” in and out of the 
Clinic; guarding the main entrance to the Clinic and 
controlling access to its Doctors; picking up and 
distributing oxycodone prescriptions written by 
Clinic Doctors for the defendants’ “patients;” and 
traveling in packs to pharmacies to fill these 
unlawfully obtained prescriptions. 

 
In connection with the arrests, the Government also 

executed five search warrants at locations associated with the 

oxycodone diversion scheme, including the Clinic itself and 

several apartments used by one of the largest crews, referred to 

in the Indictment as the “Beacon Crew.”  While agents are still 

processing the evidence gathered as a result of the search 

warrants, initial indications are that the warrants resulted in 

the recovery of substantial additional evidence of the charged 

conspiracy, including thousands of pages of documents relevant 

to the investigation that have been recovered from the Clinic. 



 
 

9 

This breadth of evidence is certainly something the Court 

should consider in connection with bail applications made by any 

defendant.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1) and (2). 

2. Sentencing Guidelines 

With respect to each defendant’s risk of flight, the 

Government submits that the Court can and should properly 

consider that each of the twenty-four defendants charged in the 

Indictment faces a Guidelines’ range substantially in excess of 

the 20-year maximum term of imprisonment authorized for Count 

One.  A preliminary calculation of the Guidelines’ range based 

on drug quantity alone for Count One is as follows: 

• As detailed above, the offense involved approximately 
5.5 million 30-milligram oxycodone tablets. 

 
• Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.4 (note 8), the Drug 

Equivalency Tables are used to convert oxycodone to 
its marihuana equivalent.   Pursuant to the Drug 
Equivalency Tables, one gram of oxycodone is converted 
to 6,700 grams of marihuana.  

 
• 5.5 million 30-milligram tablets equals approximately 

165,000 grams of oxycodone.  Accordingly, pursuant to 
the Drug Equivalency Tables, the offense conduct 
involves approximately 1,105,500 kilograms of 
marihuana. 

 
• Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), the base offense 

level is 38 because the offense involved more than 
30,000 kilograms of marihuana. 

 
Even in Criminal History Category I – in which, as 

detailed further below, few of the charged defendants will be – 

an offense level of 38 yields an advisory, applicable 



 
 

10 

Guidelines’ range of 235-293, capped by the 240 month statutory 

maximum.  As referenced above, that Guidelines’ calculation is 

based on drug quantity alone and does not factor in some of the 

various enhancements likely to apply to some or of the charged 

defendants, including enhancements for role, acts of violence 

and use of firearms in connection with the charged narcotics 

offense, and maintenance of a stash house, among other things. 

The significant terms of imprisonment faced by the 

defendants thus unquestionably increases their risk of flight.  

This is particularly true given that the terms of imprisonment 

these defendants are likely to face in this case will be 

substantially higher than any term these defendants have 

previously served in connection with their other, prior 

convictions.  

B. Danger to the Community 

The Oxycodone distribution ring charged in the Indictment 

operated just like a traditional drug trafficking organization, 

relying on threats and violence to maintain and expand the 

organization’s presence in New York City.  In particular, the 

investigation to date has uncovered evidence of dozens of other 

incidents of violence committed as part of the charged 

conspiracy. 

Based on debriefings of numerous informants, undercover 

agents, and cooperating witnesses, as well as the investigation 



 
 

11 

to date, the Government is aware of, among other things, the 

following: 

(a) Crew Chiefs frequently used threats, 
intimidation, and violence to control their 
“crews” of patients and to protect their access 
to the Clinic and its doctors.  As recently as 
January 2014, for example, DAVID MOODY and GEORGE 
BARROW, a/k/a “Coco,” spoke openly at the Clinic 
about the need for “patients” and Office Staff to 
stay silent, threatening anyone within earshot 
with retaliation for speaking with law 
enforcement. 
 

(b) Similarly, in May 2013, DARRYL BRATHWAITE, the 
defendant, bragged about his “crew” of patients – 
identified in the Indictment as the “Beacon Crew” 
– and talked about how he, along with VOKRT 
ALSAIDI and KENRICK CHANLDER, the defendants, 
used threats and intimidation to control the 
crew. 
   

More generally, cooperators and sources described 

violence as a part of everyday life at the Clinic, where 

“bouncers” – such as DAVID STEWART, a/k/a “Cash Money,” a/k/a 

“Pork Chop,” the defendant – manned the front door at all times.  

Many Crew Chiefs also had their own “muscle,” i.e., frequently 

armed body guards who remained in close proximity to the Clinic 

at all times, standing ready should violence erupt, which it 

frequently did.  For example: 

(a) In or around September 2013, a Clinic employee 
not named in the Indictment (“Individual-1”), was 
thrown through a wall at the Clinic, suffering 
severe injuries.  The attack, which the 
Government presently believes was committed by 
ELIJAH PINCKNEY, the defendant, was in 
retaliation for Individual-1’s attempts to 
curtail the control various Crew Chiefs, 
including PINCKNEY, were able to exert over the 
Office Staff. 



 
 

12 

 
(b) On or about October 2, 2013, SAMANTHA LIVINGSTON, 

the defendant, was assaulted inside the Clinic 
office by unidentified individuals believed to be 
associated with Crew Chiefs who were upset at the 
increasingly high prices LIVINGSTON and other 
members of the Office Staff were charging to put 
new patients “into the system” to see a Clinic 
Doctor.  LIVINGSTON, who was visibly pregnant at 
the time, was hospitalized as a result of the 
attack. 

 
(c) On or about December 27, 2013, RAVELO MANZANILLO, 

a/k/a “Grande,” the defendant, was shot in the 
shoulder on Tintin Avenue in the Bronx, just 
blocks away from the Clinic.  OLGA MENDOZA 
DELAROSA, the defendant, was also present at the 
time.   Based on the investigation to date, the 
Government believes that the shooting stemmed 
from a dispute between MANZANILLO and another co-
conspirator not named as defendant in the 
Indictment (“CC-2”) over a recent, large sale of 
oxycodone tablets. 

 
(d) In mid-January 2014, a “bouncer” hired by the 

Crew Chiefs to guard the Clinic’s front door 
threw an individual trying to gain access to the 
Clinic as a “new patient” through the Clinic’s 
front window, shattering the window which 
remained broken for several weeks thereafter. 

 
The doctors as well as the Clinic itself were also frequent 

targets of threats and violence initiated by Crew Chiefs intent 

on maintaining their control over the Clinic and their ready 

access to a continuous flow of unlawfully obtained oxycodone.  

For example: 

(a) On or about October 17, 2012, two unidentified 
individuals robbed the Westchester Ave. Office at 
gunpoint, removing the Office safe – used to 
store the cash payments required by the Clinic 
for each “doctor visit” – in the process.   
 

(b) On or about April 14, 2013, a Doctor not named as 
a defendant in the Indictment (“CC-3”) was 



 
 

13 

threatened at gun point just outside of the 
Westchester Ave. Office by three masked 
individuals – all believed to be Crew Chiefs – 
upset that CC-3 was not writing more medically 
unnecessary prescriptions for the “patients” 
being sent in by the Crew Chiefs each day.   CC-
3, who had been writing up to 50 medically 
unnecessary prescriptions each day, had at that 
point recently announced that he would not be 
accepting any additional “patients.”  

 
(c) In or around July 2013, a Doctor referred to in 

the indictment as Doctor-1, called the police in 
response to threats from a “patient” sent into 
the Clinic by EVELYN WHITE, the defendant.  
Enraged at Doctor-1 for involving the police, 
WHITE proceeded to deface Doctor-1’s car and 
slashed Doctor-1’s tires, while threatening 
further, physical retaliation should Doctor-1 
ever call the police again. 

 
(d) On or about February 4, 2014, Doctor-1 was 

arrested at the Clinic.  Shortly thereafter, a 
search warrant was executed at Doctor-1’s 
residence where law enforcement recovered a 
handgun along with approximately 47 rounds of 
ammunition. 

 
In addition, DR. KEVIN LOWE, the defendant, was himself 

complicit in much of the violence described above, chastising 

Clinic employees for calling the police and making it generally 

known that he did not want law enforcement in or around the 

Clinic at any time, even amidst violent outbreaks. 

This series of violent episodes – which touches on 

virtually every aspect of the charged conspiracy – weighs 

heavily in favor of detention.  That is particularly true given 

that many of the charged defendants have lengthy criminal 



 
 

14 

histories which include prior drug convictions, as well as 

convictions for gun crimes and crimes of violence.  For example: 

(a) GEORGE BARROW, a/k/a “Coco,” the defendant, has 

at least seven prior drug-related felony 

convictions, and will likely be treated as a 

Career Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(b) DONALD CARR, a/k/a “Buster,” the defendant, has 

at least two prior drug-related felony 

convictions, as well as a felony weapon 

conviction, and will likely be treated as a 

Career Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(c) KENRICK CHANDLER, the defendant, has at least 

four prior drug-related felony convictions, as 

well as a prior felony conviction for armed 

robbery, and will likely be treated as a Career 

Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(d) BRADLEY MITCHELL, the defendant, has at least 

three prior drug-related felony convictions, as 

well as a prior felony conviction for armed 

robbery, and will likely be treated as a Career 

Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(e) DAVID MOODY, the defendant, has at least three 

prior felony convictions, including prior felony 

drug-related and assault convictions, as well as 



 
 

15 

an additional prior conviction for witness 

tampering.  

(f) ROBERT WILLIAMS, a/k/a “Crusader Rob,” the 

defendant, has at least three prior felony 

convictions, including a drug-related conviction, 

as well as convictions for criminal possession of 

a firearm and robbery. 

In sum, the Government submits the participants in the 

charged conspiracy pose a substantial risk of continued 

dangerousness to the community if released on bail. 

IV. Conclusion  

For the foregoing reasons, among others, the Government 

anticipates seeking detention of many of the named defendants in 

the above-captioned Indictment. 

Dated: New York, New York 
February 5, 2014 

 
     
        Respectfully submitted, 

 
   PREET BHARARA 
   United States Attorney for the 
   Southern District of New York 
   Attorney for the United States 

    of America 
 

 
 

     By:___/s/_________________ 
             Edward B. Diskant      

   Tatiana R. Martins 
   Assistant United States Attorneys 

         (212) 637-2294/2215

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  X  
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
  - v. – 
 
KEVIN LOWE, 
DAVID MOODY, 
RASHAWN WHIDBEE,  
   a/k/a “Ra-Ra,” 
ROBERT WILLIAMS, 
   a/k/a “Crusader Rob,” 
DONALD CARR,  
   a/k/a “Buster,” 
GEORGE BARROW, 
   a/k/a “Coco,” 
BRADLEY MITCHELL, 
ELIJAH PINCKNEY, 
EVELYN WHITE, 
CEDRIC WHITE, 
   a/k/a “Sin,” 
SHEILA CARTER, 
RAVELO MANZANILLO, 
   a/k/a “Grande,” 
JONATHAN HUERTAS, 
OLGA MENDOZA DELAROSA, 
BRYAN RIVERA, 
SAMANTHA LIVINGSTON, 
BRIDGET HIGGINS, 
DAVID STEWART, 
   a/k/a “Cash Money,” 
   a/k/a “Pork Chop,” 
VOKART ALSAIDI, 
KENRICK CHANDLER, 
   a/k/a “Booby,” 
DARRYL BRATHWAITE, 
THEODORE ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, 
   a/k/a “Top,” 
WALEED ALSAIDI, 
RONALD CARR, 
 
                   Defendants. 

: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 
 
: 

DETENTION MEMO  
 
 
14 Cr. 055 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x  
 



 
 

2 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE 
DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

The Government respectfully submits the following in 

support of its anticipated application to detain certain of the 

twenty-four defendants named in the above-captioned Indictment 

(the “defendants”).  Below, the Government highlights certain 

issues relevant to all defendants.  

I. Background 

As set forth more fully in the Indictment, a copy of 

which is attached hereto, the defendants are all charged with 

participating in a massive drug distribution ring involving the 

prescription pain killer oxycodone.  Oxycodone is a highly 

addictive, prescription narcotic-strength opioid used to treat 

severe and chronic pain conditions.  The misuse of prescriptions 

painkillers such as oxycodone leads to as many as 500,000 annual 

emergency room visits.  In fact, the number of prescription 

painkiller overdose deaths is now greater than the number of 

overdose deaths from heroin and cocaine combined.   

Oxycodone prescriptions have enormous cash value to 

street level drug dealers, who can fill the prescriptions at 

most pharmacies and resell the resulting pills at vastly 

inflated rates.  Indeed, a single prescription for 180 30-

milligram oxycodone pills has an average resale value in New 

York City of more than $6,000, and up to $18,000 in nearby 

states.    



 
 

3 

The conspiracy charged in the Indictment involved the 

unlawful diversion and trafficking of millions of oxycodone 

tablets.  The operations of the alleged drug distribution ring 

were centered at “Astramed,” a purported pain management clinic 

with several locations in the Bronx, including a primary 

location on Southern Boulevard (the “Clinic”) and another 

location on Westchester Avenue in the Bronx (the “Westchester 

Ave. Office”).  The conspiracy involved doctors, Clinic 

employees, and drug traffickers who managed crews of “patients,” 

sending them into the Clinic to obtain medically unnecessary 

prescriptions.    

Essential to this illegal distribution conspiracy were 

corrupt, Board certified, state licensed doctors who, in 

exchange for cash, were willing to write medically unnecessary 

prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone (the “Doctors”).  

The Clinic typically charged $300 in cash for “doctor visits” 

that usually lasted just a minute or two, involved no actual 

physical examination, and consistently resulted in the issuance 

of a prescription for large doses of oxycodone, typically 180 

30-milligram tablets, or a daily dosage of six 30-milligram 

tablets.   

The Clinic itself bears little resemblance to a 

standard medical office.  For example, on a daily basis, crowds 

of up to one hundred people gathered outside the Clinic, 



 
 

4 

clamoring to see one of the Doctors and thereby get a 

prescription for oxycodone.  The majority of these individuals 

had no medical need for oxycodone, or any legitimate medical 

record documenting an ailment for which oxycodone would be 

prescribed.  Instead, most of these individuals were members of 

“crews” – that is, they were recruited and paid by high-level 

drug traffickers (the “Crew Chiefs”) to pose as “patients” in 

order to receive medically unnecessary prescriptions from the 

Doctors.  The Crew Chiefs then arranged for and oversaw the 

filling of the resulting prescription at various pharmacies and 

took possession of the oxycodone pills for resale.  Crew Chiefs 

also paid the Clinic’s employees hundreds of dollars in cash at 

a time to get their Crew Members into the Clinic to see one of 

the Doctors.  The Crew Chiefs maintained their joint control 

over the operations of the Clinic in part as a result of 

intimidation and the threat of violence. 

In total, between in or around January 2011 and in or 

around January 2014, Astramed Doctors wrote approximately 31,500 

medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone, comprising 

nearly 5.5 million oxycodone tablets with a street value of up 

to $550 million.  Astramed’s owner, DR. KEVIN LOWE, the 

defendant, alone collected nearly $12 million in fees for 

“doctor visits” made by Crew Members during this time period. 

 
 
 



 
 

5 

II. Applicable Law 

The Indictment charges various defendants with conspiring 

to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a 

controlled substance in violation of Title 21, United States 

Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).  Count One carries a 

maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.  Accordingly, Count 

One carries a statutory presumption that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s 

appearance in court and the safety of the community.  18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(e)(3)(A).  Because the statutory presumption of Section 

3142(e)(3)(A) is triggered here, the defendants bear the burden 

of producing sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.  See 

United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007); see 

also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 

1986).   

In determining whether a defendant has rebutted that 

statutory presumption, courts are instructed to consider:  (1) 

the nature and circumstances of the crime charged; (2) the 

weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history 

and characteristics of the defendant, including family ties, 

employment, community ties, past conduct; and (4) the nature and 

seriousness of the danger to the community or to an individual.  

See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1).  Even where a defendant produces 

sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 



 
 

6 

detention, the presumption does not disappear, instead it 

becomes a factor to be weighed and considered like all the 

others in deciding whether to release the defendant.  See United 

States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991).   

If a defendant meets the burden of production, the 

ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the Government, which 

must establish either (1) by a preponderance of evidence that 

the defendant is a flight risk and no condition or combination 

of conditions will assure his appearance in court, or (2) by 

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger 

to any other person or the community.  For purposes of the bail 

statute, the concept of dangerousness includes “the danger that 

the defendant might engage in criminal activity to the detriment 

of the community.”  United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 

(2d Cir. 1993).  Notably, danger to the community includes “the 

harm to society caused by [the likelihood of continued] 

narcotics trafficking.”  United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 81 

(2d Cir. 1985). 

III. Discussion 

While the Court’s bail determination is obviously unique 

to each defendant – and the Government certainly anticipates 

making defendant-specific presentations – below the Government 

highlights certain factors likely to be relevant to all 



 
 

7 

defendants and that may not be apparent from the face of the 

Indictment: 

A. Risk of Flight 

With respect to the risk of flight, factors such as the 

strength of the Government’s case and the exposure each 

defendant is likely to face upon conviction all counsel in favor 

of detention for many of the charged defendants. 

1. Strength of the Government’s Case    

The Indictment is the result of an extensive 

investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York and the Tactical Diversion Squad 

of the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (“DEA Task 

Force”).  To date, the investigation has involved the use of at 

least a dozen cooperating sources, confidential informants and 

undercover agents; thousands of hours of surveillance, much of 

it recorded; multiple search warrants of premises associated 

with the drug diversion scheme, including the Astramed clinic 

itself; and extensive analysis of prescription records obtained 

from the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. 

As a result of that extensive investigation, the evidence 

against the defendants is both varied and strong.  It includes, 

among other things: 

(a) Consensual recordings made by undercover agents 
posing as “patients” that expose the internal 
dealings of the Clinic as well as the sham “doctor 
visits” which invariably led to the issuance of 
oxycodone prescriptions. 



 
 

8 

 
(b) Consensual recordings involving Crew Chiefs 

discussing, among other things, the use of 
“patients;” the payment or receipt of cash in 
exchange for getting new “patients” in to see a 
Doctor; fees associated with obtaining urine 
samples; and the use of intimidation to maintain 
control over the defendants’ access to the Clinic. 

   
(c) Records documenting the tens of thousands of 

medically unnecessary prescriptions written by 
Clinic Doctors, who averaged more than 200 such 
prescriptions each week and who, on occasion, wrote 
well over 100 oxycodone prescriptions in a single 
day. 

 
(d) Hundreds of hours of surveillance, much of them 

recorded, that capture virtually every aspect of the 
scheme, including the defendants’ daily presence at 
the Clinic escorting “patients” in and out of the 
Clinic; guarding the main entrance to the Clinic and 
controlling access to its Doctors; picking up and 
distributing oxycodone prescriptions written by 
Clinic Doctors for the defendants’ “patients;” and 
traveling in packs to pharmacies to fill these 
unlawfully obtained prescriptions. 

 
In connection with the arrests, the Government also 

executed five search warrants at locations associated with the 

oxycodone diversion scheme, including the Clinic itself and 

several apartments used by one of the largest crews, referred to 

in the Indictment as the “Beacon Crew.”  While agents are still 

processing the evidence gathered as a result of the search 

warrants, initial indications are that the warrants resulted in 

the recovery of substantial additional evidence of the charged 

conspiracy, including thousands of pages of documents relevant 

to the investigation that have been recovered from the Clinic. 



 
 

9 

This breadth of evidence is certainly something the Court 

should consider in connection with bail applications made by any 

defendant.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1) and (2). 

2. Sentencing Guidelines 

With respect to each defendant’s risk of flight, the 

Government submits that the Court can and should properly 

consider that each of the twenty-four defendants charged in the 

Indictment faces a Guidelines’ range substantially in excess of 

the 20-year maximum term of imprisonment authorized for Count 

One.  A preliminary calculation of the Guidelines’ range based 

on drug quantity alone for Count One is as follows: 

• As detailed above, the offense involved approximately 
5.5 million 30-milligram oxycodone tablets. 

 
• Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.4 (note 8), the Drug 

Equivalency Tables are used to convert oxycodone to 
its marihuana equivalent.   Pursuant to the Drug 
Equivalency Tables, one gram of oxycodone is converted 
to 6,700 grams of marihuana.  

 
• 5.5 million 30-milligram tablets equals approximately 

165,000 grams of oxycodone.  Accordingly, pursuant to 
the Drug Equivalency Tables, the offense conduct 
involves approximately 1,105,500 kilograms of 
marihuana. 

 
• Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), the base offense 

level is 38 because the offense involved more than 
30,000 kilograms of marihuana. 

 
Even in Criminal History Category I – in which, as 

detailed further below, few of the charged defendants will be – 

an offense level of 38 yields an advisory, applicable 



 
 

10 

Guidelines’ range of 235-293, capped by the 240 month statutory 

maximum.  As referenced above, that Guidelines’ calculation is 

based on drug quantity alone and does not factor in some of the 

various enhancements likely to apply to some or of the charged 

defendants, including enhancements for role, acts of violence 

and use of firearms in connection with the charged narcotics 

offense, and maintenance of a stash house, among other things. 

The significant terms of imprisonment faced by the 

defendants thus unquestionably increases their risk of flight.  

This is particularly true given that the terms of imprisonment 

these defendants are likely to face in this case will be 

substantially higher than any term these defendants have 

previously served in connection with their other, prior 

convictions.  

B. Danger to the Community 

The Oxycodone distribution ring charged in the Indictment 

operated just like a traditional drug trafficking organization, 

relying on threats and violence to maintain and expand the 

organization’s presence in New York City.  In particular, the 

investigation to date has uncovered evidence of dozens of other 

incidents of violence committed as part of the charged 

conspiracy. 

Based on debriefings of numerous informants, undercover 

agents, and cooperating witnesses, as well as the investigation 



 
 

11 

to date, the Government is aware of, among other things, the 

following: 

(a) Crew Chiefs frequently used threats, 
intimidation, and violence to control their 
“crews” of patients and to protect their access 
to the Clinic and its doctors.  As recently as 
January 2014, for example, DAVID MOODY and GEORGE 
BARROW, a/k/a “Coco,” spoke openly at the Clinic 
about the need for “patients” and Office Staff to 
stay silent, threatening anyone within earshot 
with retaliation for speaking with law 
enforcement. 
 

(b) Similarly, in May 2013, DARRYL BRATHWAITE, the 
defendant, bragged about his “crew” of patients – 
identified in the Indictment as the “Beacon Crew” 
– and talked about how he, along with VOKRT 
ALSAIDI and KENRICK CHANLDER, the defendants, 
used threats and intimidation to control the 
crew. 
   

More generally, cooperators and sources described 

violence as a part of everyday life at the Clinic, where 

“bouncers” – such as DAVID STEWART, a/k/a “Cash Money,” a/k/a 

“Pork Chop,” the defendant – manned the front door at all times.  

Many Crew Chiefs also had their own “muscle,” i.e., frequently 

armed body guards who remained in close proximity to the Clinic 

at all times, standing ready should violence erupt, which it 

frequently did.  For example: 

(a) In or around September 2013, a Clinic employee 
not named in the Indictment (“Individual-1”), was 
thrown through a wall at the Clinic, suffering 
severe injuries.  The attack, which the 
Government presently believes was committed by 
ELIJAH PINCKNEY, the defendant, was in 
retaliation for Individual-1’s attempts to 
curtail the control various Crew Chiefs, 
including PINCKNEY, were able to exert over the 
Office Staff. 



 
 

12 

 
(b) On or about October 2, 2013, SAMANTHA LIVINGSTON, 

the defendant, was assaulted inside the Clinic 
office by unidentified individuals believed to be 
associated with Crew Chiefs who were upset at the 
increasingly high prices LIVINGSTON and other 
members of the Office Staff were charging to put 
new patients “into the system” to see a Clinic 
Doctor.  LIVINGSTON, who was visibly pregnant at 
the time, was hospitalized as a result of the 
attack. 

 
(c) On or about December 27, 2013, RAVELO MANZANILLO, 

a/k/a “Grande,” the defendant, was shot in the 
shoulder on Tintin Avenue in the Bronx, just 
blocks away from the Clinic.  OLGA MENDOZA 
DELAROSA, the defendant, was also present at the 
time.   Based on the investigation to date, the 
Government believes that the shooting stemmed 
from a dispute between MANZANILLO and another co-
conspirator not named as defendant in the 
Indictment (“CC-2”) over a recent, large sale of 
oxycodone tablets. 

 
(d) In mid-January 2014, a “bouncer” hired by the 

Crew Chiefs to guard the Clinic’s front door 
threw an individual trying to gain access to the 
Clinic as a “new patient” through the Clinic’s 
front window, shattering the window which 
remained broken for several weeks thereafter. 

 
The doctors as well as the Clinic itself were also frequent 

targets of threats and violence initiated by Crew Chiefs intent 

on maintaining their control over the Clinic and their ready 

access to a continuous flow of unlawfully obtained oxycodone.  

For example: 

(a) On or about October 17, 2012, two unidentified 
individuals robbed the Westchester Ave. Office at 
gunpoint, removing the Office safe – used to 
store the cash payments required by the Clinic 
for each “doctor visit” – in the process.   
 

(b) On or about April 14, 2013, a Doctor not named as 
a defendant in the Indictment (“CC-3”) was 



 
 

13 

threatened at gun point just outside of the 
Westchester Ave. Office by three masked 
individuals – all believed to be Crew Chiefs – 
upset that CC-3 was not writing more medically 
unnecessary prescriptions for the “patients” 
being sent in by the Crew Chiefs each day.   CC-
3, who had been writing up to 50 medically 
unnecessary prescriptions each day, had at that 
point recently announced that he would not be 
accepting any additional “patients.”  

 
(c) In or around July 2013, a Doctor referred to in 

the indictment as Doctor-1, called the police in 
response to threats from a “patient” sent into 
the Clinic by EVELYN WHITE, the defendant.  
Enraged at Doctor-1 for involving the police, 
WHITE proceeded to deface Doctor-1’s car and 
slashed Doctor-1’s tires, while threatening 
further, physical retaliation should Doctor-1 
ever call the police again. 

 
(d) On or about February 4, 2014, Doctor-1 was 

arrested at the Clinic.  Shortly thereafter, a 
search warrant was executed at Doctor-1’s 
residence where law enforcement recovered a 
handgun along with approximately 47 rounds of 
ammunition. 

 
In addition, DR. KEVIN LOWE, the defendant, was himself 

complicit in much of the violence described above, chastising 

Clinic employees for calling the police and making it generally 

known that he did not want law enforcement in or around the 

Clinic at any time, even amidst violent outbreaks. 

This series of violent episodes – which touches on 

virtually every aspect of the charged conspiracy – weighs 

heavily in favor of detention.  That is particularly true given 

that many of the charged defendants have lengthy criminal 



 
 

14 

histories which include prior drug convictions, as well as 

convictions for gun crimes and crimes of violence.  For example: 

(a) GEORGE BARROW, a/k/a “Coco,” the defendant, has 

at least seven prior drug-related felony 

convictions, and will likely be treated as a 

Career Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(b) DONALD CARR, a/k/a “Buster,” the defendant, has 

at least two prior drug-related felony 

convictions, as well as a felony weapon 

conviction, and will likely be treated as a 

Career Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(c) KENRICK CHANDLER, the defendant, has at least 

four prior drug-related felony convictions, as 

well as a prior felony conviction for armed 

robbery, and will likely be treated as a Career 

Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(d) BRADLEY MITCHELL, the defendant, has at least 

three prior drug-related felony convictions, as 

well as a prior felony conviction for armed 

robbery, and will likely be treated as a Career 

Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 

(e) DAVID MOODY, the defendant, has at least three 

prior felony convictions, including prior felony 

drug-related and assault convictions, as well as 



 
 

15 

an additional prior conviction for witness 

tampering.  

(f) ROBERT WILLIAMS, a/k/a “Crusader Rob,” the 

defendant, has at least three prior felony 

convictions, including a drug-related conviction, 

as well as convictions for criminal possession of 

a firearm and robbery. 

In sum, the Government submits the participants in the 

charged conspiracy pose a substantial risk of continued 

dangerousness to the community if released on bail. 

IV. Conclusion  

For the foregoing reasons, among others, the Government 

anticipates seeking detention of many of the named defendants in 

the above-captioned Indictment. 

Dated: New York, New York 
February 5, 2014 

 
     
        Respectfully submitted, 

 
   PREET BHARARA 
   United States Attorney for the 
   Southern District of New York 
   Attorney for the United States 

    of America 
 

 
 

     By:___/s/_________________ 
             Edward B. Diskant      

   Tatiana R. Martins 
   Assistant United States Attorneys 

         (212) 637-2294/2215