Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Gibb

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 11, 2014

MICKY GIBB, Defendant.


DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Before the Court is defendant Micky Gibb's motion to dismiss indictment (Doc. 104). Defendant Gibb contests the validity of the indictment asserting that it hinges on alleged entrapment. Specifically, Gibb argues that he would not have committed the crime but for the government's intervention. The government responded in opposition to the motion attacking it as premature and unfounded (Doc. 113). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion to dismiss.

II. Background

This summary of the facts is derived from the detailed descriptions provided by the parties (Docs. 104, 113) and the indictment filed in this case (Doc. 22). Micky Gibb and his co-defendants were indicted on or about July 17, 2013, on charges arising out of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") operation known as the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Surge (hereinafter "Surge") (Doc. 22). Gibb currently faces charges for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count 1); using and carrying a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count 2); and possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1) (Count 3) (Doc. 22).

Federal law enforcement initiated the Surge in response to the increase in violent crime rates in the St. Louis Metro Area, which encompasses the Southern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Missouri. The Surge utilized undercover agents, confidential informants, and a home invasion investigative method, all together part of "Gideon V." An undercover ATF agent posed as a drug courier for a Mexican cartel in search of associates to carry out a fictitious robbery of a cartel stash house. After employing a confidential informant, the undercover ATF agent (hereinafter UC) was introduced to defendant Gibb.

The confidential informant (hereinafter CI) first met Gibb through Demetrius Williams, known as "Mook G." Gibb bragged to the CI about his criminal record, specifically mentioning that he was a shooter who the CI should "Google." However, the initial introduction was not recorded. Following introductions, the CI informed Gibb of an associate in search of a team willing to rob a local stash house. Gibb requested a meeting with the associate, who in fact was the undercover ATF agent.

After reviewing Gibb's criminal record and statements to the CI, ATF agents directed the CI to arrange a meeting between Gibb and the UC. On June 27, 2013, the UC met Gibb in Sauget, Illinois to discuss the home invasion style robbery to recover approximately 15 kilos of cocaine. After multiple attempts to wake Gibb on that day, the CI eventually drove him to meet the UC. While planning later meetups, the UC suggested a later time of day based largely on the fact that Gibb had been sleeping. However, Gibb responded, "Shit man, if it money man, I'm up man." Meetings continued as scheduled.

The UC explained the circumstances surrounding the stash house setup. He described the "Mexicans, " who were part of the cartel guarding the cocaine, as not giving the drugs over easily. Gibb responded, "I been to the joint, I know how these things get down. I already know." Gibb then specified that he would need to assemble a crew of guys he knew in order to successfully complete the job.

At a June 28, 2013 meeting, the UC informed Gibb and Jerry Pirtle, also known as "Jero, " that the drug house would be guarded by two men, one of which always carried a firearm. Gibb told the UC that they currently possessed two guns, but explained that there would be three individuals committing the robbery. Gibb expressed some concern about acquiring a third gun. He stated that once the men got inside the house, they planned to lay everyone down on the ground.

The UC planned to meet Gibb and his crew again on July 2, 2013 to execute the robbery. Gibb and the CI met that morning and the CI drove to pick up Gibb's co-defendants. The CI then took the men to a house on Glenwood Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois. Upon returning to the car, the men possessed two guns, which Gibb and one co-defendant then placed in the trunk. The CI then drove the car to Sauget, Illinois to meet the UC.

Upon reaching Sauget, the men met with the UC, who repeated details about the stash house robbery. Gibb and his co-defendants began planning their movements once at the stash house, specifically in relation to the guards. Gibb indicated that he would rather "catch both in the same spot." He elaborated further into the discussion stating, "we putting them... just laying them down." After stealing the drugs, the men planned to split the cocaine "fifty-fifty" as compensation for the carrying out the robbery.

The UC offered Gibb one final opportunity to withdraw from the robbery plan that day. Following Gibb's visible reaction to hearing that he would not be provided with a third gun, the UC asked Gibb "if you ain't feeling it?" However, Gibb responded, "Man, fuck it. We fittin' to do this man." As a result, the UC drove to the designated arrest location with the CI following behind in his vehicle.

At the arrest location Gibb and his co-defendants were taken into custody. Following the arrests, agents seized a loaded Colt.38 caliber revolver and a loaded Taurus 9mm handgun from the trunk of CI's vehicle, which Gibb and his co-defendant placed earlier that day. Following their arrests, Gibb and his co-defendants were indicted for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.