Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Leon Barcley Stusalitus, Petitioner v. Angelique Ortiz, et al.

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A (Fourth Circuit Opinion)............. ...la

APPENDIX B (District Court Decision).................. 8a

APPENDIX C (Criminal Complaint)........ ............. 17a

APPENDIX D (Felony Warrant 1)......................... 21a

APPENDIX E (Felony Warrant 2)......................... 25a

APPENDIX F (Felony Warrant 3)......................... 29a

ia

APPENDIX A

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1186

LEON BARCLEY STUSALITUS, An Individual,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANGELIQUE ORTIZ, a/k/a A. M. Ortiz; KELVIN

WRIGHT, In his supervisory capacity as Chief of

Police,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jamar

Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00202JKW-LRL)

Submitted: September 22, 2025 Decided: December

2, 2025

Before KING, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Benjamin

wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge

Rushing joined.

ON BRIEF: Matthew J. Weinberg, INMAN &

STRICKLER, P.L.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for

Appellant. Melissa Hamann, Deputy City Attorney,

Adam J. Lantz, Assistant City Attorney, Office of the

City

Attorney,

CITY

OF

CHESAPEAKE,

Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in

this circuit.

DEANDREA GIST BENJAMIN, Circuit Judge:

Leon Barcley Stusalitus sued Officer Angelique

Ortiz and Chief of Police Kelvin Wright (in his

supervisory capacity) for malicious prosecution. The

district court granted the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. We hold that the district court

did not err by granting the defendants’ summary

judgment motion.

I.

Stusalitus’ former partner Alaina Cmelik went

to a Chesapeake Police Department station to make a

report against him for three separate incidents of

alleged abduction, occurring on July 22, August 12,

and August 15 of 2021. Ortiz took Cmelik’s statement

2a

and then walked her to the magistrate judge’s office.

Cmelik presented an affidavit to the magistrate

judge, and the magistrate judge found that probable

cause existed to issue arrest warrants for three counts

of felony abduction. Stusalitus was arrested on those

warrants. Stusalitus eventually accepted a plea deal,

in which he agreed to a two-year no-contact protective

order in exchange for the prosecution to nolle

prosequi1 the charges against him.

After accepting the plea deal, Stusalitus filed a

complaint with the Chesapeake Police Department.

The police department investigated Stusalitus’

allegations and determined that Ortiz should have

first elevated the felony abduction charges to its

criminal investigations section before going to the

magistrate judge. The department sent a letter to

Stusalitus informing him that his complaint had been

investigated, and that the matter had been handled

administratively.

Stusalitus then filed a complaint in federal

district court, claiming that the defendants

maliciously prosecuted him. The defendants filed a

motion for summary judgment, and the district court

ultimately granted the motion and dismissed the

malicious prosecution claim. The district court

reasoned that Stusalitus did “not present any

evidence to contradict the factual allegations in

1 “[A] nolle prosequi is a discontinuance which discharges the

accused from liability on the indictment to which the nolle

prosequi is entered.” Miller v. Commonwealth, 234 S.E.2d 269,

273 (Va. 1977).

3a

[Cmelik’s] affidavit that was presented to the

magistrate.” J.A. 80.2

We agree and affirm the district court. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as this is an

appeal of a final decision from the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

II.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo.” Bhattacharya v. Murray, 93 F.4th

675, 686 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Guthrie v. PHHMortg.

Corp., 79 F.4th 328, 342 (4th Cir. 2023)).

A.

To state a claim of malicious prosecution,

Stusalitus must show that (1) the defendants seized

him “ ‘pursuant to legal process that was not

supported by probable cause, and (2) that the criminal

proceedings have terminated in [his] favor.’ ” Durham

v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal

quotation marks omitted & emphasis added). A

reviewing court generally accords “great deference” to

a magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause.

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984). We

should decline “to defer only when the finding was not

supported by substantial evidence in the record or

when the basis of the determination was a knowingly

or recklessly false affidavit.” United States v. Davis,

2 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the joint appendix filed by the

parties. The J.A. contains the record on appeal from the district

court. Page numbers for citations to the J.A. utilize the “JA#”

numbering at the bottom of the page on each document.

4a

94 F.4th 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).3

The affidavit on which a magistrate judge relies is

also entitled to a “presumption of validity,” and a

plaintiff who seeks to overcome that presumption

must raise the possibility that information therein is

false, with “more than conclusory” allegations. Franks

v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1971).

B.

Stusalitus presents two main arguments on

appeal—both fail because he cannot show that his

arrest was not supported by probable cause.

i.

First, he asserts that under Virginia law, a

magistrate judge may only issue a felony arrest

warrant based on a civilian complaint if it is first

authorized by the Commonwealth’s Attorney or by a

law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the

alleged offense. See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-71 (2021).

This argument is irrelevant. While the department

conceded that Ortiz should have elevated the charges

to its investigations section, the first prima facie

element to meet a malicious prosecution claim is

whether the person was arrested without probable

cause—not whether the arrest warrant itself was

3 Stusalitus seems to argue that the level of deference given to a

magistrate judge is higher for search warrants, and thus United

States v. Davis, 94 F.4th 310 (4th Cir. 2024), is inapplicable to

the arrest warrants here. Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 12) at 6-7.

That is not true. The Fourth Circuit has routinely used the

standard in Davis to review a magistrate judge’s finding of

probable cause for arrest warrants. See, e.g., United States v.

Clenney, 631 F.3d 658, 663 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Franks v.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 171 (1971)); see also Cahaly v.

Larosa, 796 F.3d 399, 408 (4th Cir. 2015).

5a

properly issued. Whether the arrest warrants had

proper authorization has no bearing on whether the

magistrate judge had probable cause to issue the

warrants.

ii.

Second, Stusalitus argues that the district

court overlooked “clear” evidence contradicting

Cmelik’s affidavit. The evidence that Stusalitus

points to are pictures of Cmelik’s diary entries that he

attached to his summary judgment opposition brief.

But the diary entries are anything but clear.

A threshold issue with the diary entries is

authentication. Stusalitus fails to swear to the

authenticity of the entries or even attach them to an

affidavit or declaration. Unauthenticated evidence

presented in such an incautious way should not be

considered. See Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86, 92 (4th

Cir. 1993) (“To be admissible at the summary

judgment stage, ‘documents must be authenticated by

and attached to an affidavit. . . . ’ ” (quoting 10A

CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2722, at 58-60

(1983 & 1993 Supp.))); see also FED. R. CIV. P.

56(c)(1)(A). “In particular, a letter must be attached

to an affidavit and authenticated by its author in the

affidavit or a deposition.” Orsi, 999 F.2d at 92

(internal quotations omitted).

Furthermore, the diary entries do not show

that Cmelik’s affidavit was false. Most of the entries

do not include any dates. There is an entry that is

dated July 19, 2021, but that is three days before

Stusalitus allegedly abducted Cmelik. Stusalitus also

does not point to any one statement in Cmelik’s

affidavit that is contradicted due to the attached diary

6a

entries. And Stusalitus’ conclusory allegations that

the affidavit is “entirely illogical” cannot overcome the

presumption that the affidavit on which the

magistrate judge relied was valid. Appellant’s Br.

(ECF No. 12) at 10 (hereinafter “Opening Br.”).4

We could find that probable cause was lacking

if Stusalitus made a showing that “a false statement

knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless

disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in

the warrant affidavit.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56.

Stusalitus fails to do this, arguing instead that Ortiz

“recklessly obtained the felony abduction warrants . .

. without investigating the statements made by

Cmelik.” Opening Br. at 9. Even if he made a

successful showing that portions of the affidavit were

false, we would still need to determine whether the

affidavit, without the false statements, would

warrant a probable cause finding. See Cahaly v.

Larosa, 796 F.3d 399, 408 (4th Cir. 2015); see also

Franks, 438 U.S. at 156. But without any argument

or evidence that undermines the veracity of the

affidavit itself, the court cannot undergo that analysis

★

*

★

Accordingly, Stusalitus fails to show a genuine

dispute of material fact regarding whether his arrest

was supported by probable cause. The judgment of the

district court is thus

AFFIRMED.

4 Page numbers for citations to ECF documents utilize the page

numbers in the red header on each document.

7a

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

Case No. 2:24-cv-202

LEON BARCLEY STUSALITUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER ANGELIQUE ORTIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Leon Barcley Stusalitus was charged

with felony abduction in violation of Va. Code § 18.247. The magistrate who issued the warrant for the

plaintiffs arrest did so based on an affidavit written

by the alleged victim. The plaintiff contends that the

police officer who walked the alleged victim to the

magistrate’s office—and that officer’s supervisor, who

was not present before the magistrate at all—engaged

in a malicious prosecution. The defendants moved for

summary judgment.1

1 The defendants previously moved to dismiss the Complaint.

ECF No. 7. In his response, the plaintiff conceded that Counts II

and IV are time-barred. ECF No. 14 at 2. Therefore, the Motion

8a

The Court has considered the arguments in the

parties’ briefing and concluded it is not proper to hold

a hearing, because the plaintiff has not made “a

substantial preliminary showing” that the affidavit

on which the magistrate based his probable cause

determination included a knowingly, intentionally, or

recklessly false statement that was “necessary to the

finding of probable cause.” United States v. Sanders,

107 F.4th 234, 252 (4th Cir. 2024) (describing the

“narrow exception” established in Franks v.

Delaware); Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171

(1978) (requiring “more than conclusory” allegations

that an affidavit is false, in order to “mandate an

evidentiary hearing” on the validity of probable

cause); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Civ. R.

7(J). Accordingly, the hearing set for February 4,

2024, is CANCELED.

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion for

Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed and control

the outcome of the motion:

I.

1. An alleged victim went to the police station

to make a report against the plaintiff. ECF

No. 25

6; see ECF No. 26 at 5 (not

disputing this fact).

2. Defendant Ortiz took the alleged victim’s

statement, then walked the alleged victim

to Dismiss will be GRANTED IN PART, and Counts II and IV

will be DISMISSED. The Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED

AS MOOT with respect to Counts I and III, which the Court

resolves on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

9a

over to the magistrate’s office. ECF No. 25

6, 12; see ECF No. 26 at 7 (not disputing

these facts).

3. The alleged victim herself presented a

sworn statement to the magistrate. ECF

No. 25

13; ECF No. 25-8 (handwritten

statement); see ECF No. 26 at 8 (not

disputing this fact).

4. The magistrate found probable cause to

issue arrest warrants for three counts of

felony abduction.2 ECF No. 25 13; ECF

No. 25-9 (warrants); see ECF No. 26 at 8

(not disputing this fact).

5. The plaintiff was arrested on those

warrants. ECF No. 25 14; see ECF No. 259.

JURISDICTION

This Court has original jurisdiction over the

plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3).

II..

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment

A court may “grant summary judgment if the

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact and the movant is entitled to

III.

2 The parties agree that the magistrate also issued warrants for

misdemeanor domestic assault and battery, at the same time he

issued the warrants for abduction. ECF No. 25 13; see ECF No.

26 at 8 (not disputing this fact). But the record contains no

evidence of assault or battery charges. See ECF No. 25-9

(warrants). Therefore, the Court will disregard this fact.

10a

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250

(1986). A “dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’..

. if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248.

“The party moving for summary judgment

bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence

of a genuine dispute of material fact.” Med. Mut. Ins.

Co. ofN. Carolina v. Gnik, 93 F.4th 192, 200 (4th Cir.

2024) (citation omitted); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). To do that, the movant must

support their assertions as to undisputed facts by

“citing to particular parts of materials in the record”

or “showing that the materials cited do not establish

the . . . presence of a genuine dispute, or that an

adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to

support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

If the moving party is successful in the first

instance, then the burden “shifts to the non-movant

to set forth specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.” Gnik, 93 F.4th at 200

(quotation marks omitted); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at

324. “The facts and all justifiable inferences arising

therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable

to the non-movant.” Gnik, 93 F.4th at 200. However,

if the non-movant “fails to properly support an

assertion of fact or fails to properly address another

party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the

court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for

purposes of the motion” or may “grant summary

judgment if the motion and supporting materials . . .

show that the movant is entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e).

11a

B. Malicious Prosecution Claims Under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

A successful malicious prosecution claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires the plaintiff to prove a

violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Thompson v.

Clark, 596 U.S. 36, 42—43 (2022). That, in turn,

requires proof that the plaintiff was seized without

probable cause. Harris v. Town of Southern Pines, 110

F.4th 633, 639 (4th Cir. 2024). Thus, to survive

summary judgment on a malicious prosecution claim,

the plaintiff must raise a genuine dispute as to

whether the charges against them were based on

probable cause. See id. at 635. Whether there is

probable cause to bring a criminal charge is a

question of law. United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164,

171 (4th Cir. 2011).

ANALYSIS

There is no genuine dispute as to whether the

charges against the plaintiff were supported by

probable cause, because the plaintiff does not present

any evidence to contradict the factual allegations in

the affidavit that was presented to the magistrate.

Courts must “defer” to a magistrate’s finding of

probable cause except “when the finding was not

supported by substantial evidence in the record or

when the basis of the determination was a knowingly

or recklessly false affidavit.” United States v. Davis,

94 F.4th 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2024); see Sanders, 107

F.4th at 250; see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,

238 (1983) (“[T]he duty of a reviewing court is simply

to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis

for concluding that probable cause existed.”)

(quotation marks omitted, alterations accepted). The

IV.

12a

affidavit on which a magistrate relies is entitled to a

“presumption of validity,” and a plaintiff who

attempts to overcome that presumption must raise

the possibility that information therein is false, with

“more than conclusory” allegations. Franks v.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978).

The defendants adequately raise whether the

validity of probable cause is beyond dispute. See ECF

No. 25 at 15—20. In his opposition brief, the plaintiff

asserts that the alleged victim “went to [the police] to

make false charges against [him].” ECF No. 26 at 5.

And in his deposition, the plaintiff said those charges

were “without any evidence.” ECF No. 25-1 at 39. But

the plaintiff does not say which statements in the

alleged victim’s affidavit are false, and he provides no

evidence to contradict what the alleged victim

presented to the magistrate.3 In other words, the

plaintiff merely makes a “conclusory” allegation that

the affidavit on which the magistrate found probable

cause was knowingly or recklessly false. Franks, 438

U.S. at 171. That is insufficient as a matter of law to

overcome the presumption that the magistrate’s

finding was valid. See Davis, 94 F.4th at 316.

Both sides’ briefs focus almost entirely on the

extent to which Defendant Ortiz should have

3 Instead of citing evidence to raise a factual issue as whether

the alleged victim’s affidavit was false, the plaintiff speculates

about the reason the alleged victim might have made false

statements, ECF No. 26 at 5 (“in order to gain leverage over [the

plaintiff] regarding their unborn child”), and makes arguments

that, even if they cited to the record—which they do not—would

be inadmissible at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 602, e.g., id.

(asserting that the alleged victim made “other frivolous

accusations in other jurisdictions,” which were also supported by

“absolutely nothing”).

13a

investigated the alleged victim’s allegations before

taking her to the magistrate to present them.4 But

nothing Defendant Ortiz did in this case matters,

because it is undisputed that the affidavit presented

to the magistrate came from the alleged victim, not

from Officer Ortiz. EOF No. 25 13; EOF No. 25-8

(handwritten complaint); see EOF No. 26 at 8 (not

disputing this fact). Likewise, nothing Defendant

Wright did or did not do makes any difference,

because he provided no evidence before the

magistrate who authorized the charges against the

plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that “by bringing the

charges herself and ‘standing up the witness’ to the

magistrate,” Defendant Ortiz “buoyed the apparent

credibility” of the alleged victim’s statements. EOF

No. 26 at 7. But that is an argument about the

reasonableness of the magistrate’s determination, not

a fact that raises the possibility that the affidavit

4 In his deposition, the plaintiff was asked “what accusations

made by” the alleged victim he claimed “Officer Ortiz should

have viewed as questionable.” EOF No. 25-1 at 41. The plaintiff

answered:

In the written criminal complaint there is a very

specific line written by [the alleged victim] where

she claims that in late June I, the defendant, had

choked her against her will and wouldn’t stop.

And she crossed it out and initialed it. I think

that would have—any reasonable person would

have said, Hey, wait a second. It sounds like

somebody is trying to kill you. Are you sure that

this happened?

Id. Notably, the defendant said Defendant Ortiz should have

questioned the alleged victim’s allegations, but the plaintiff still

provides no contrary facts to raise the possibility that the

affidavit the alleged victim presented to the magistrate was

false.

14a

itself was false. And without any fact that undercuts

the veracity of the affidavit, the Court cannot even

reach the question of whether the magistrate’s

judgment was correct. See Davis, 94 F.4th at 316.

Therefore, the Court finds that there is no

genuine dispute as to whether the charges against the

plaintiff were based upon probable cause. That

entitles the defendants to judgment as a matter of

law.5

V.

CONCLUSION

The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7)

is GRANTED IN PART, and Counts II and IV of the

Complaint are DISMISSED. The remainder of the

motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

The defendants’ Motion for

Judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.

Summary

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in

favor of Defendants Officer Angelique Ortiz and

Kelvin Wright as to Counts I and III.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ JKW

Jamar K. Walker

5 The defendants argue that if there were a genuine dispute as

to the validity of probable cause to support the plaintiffs

charges, summary judgment would still be appropriate on the

basis of qualified immunity. ECF No. 25 at 20-21. Because the

Court decides the Motion on the merits of the malicious

prosecution claims, it declines to reach qualified immunity.

15a

United States District

Judge

Norfolk, Virginia

January 31, 2025

16a

APPENDIX C

[Text from left side of form]

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT RULES 3A:3 AND 7C:3

Commonwealth of Virginia

CITY OR COUNTY Chesapeake

[ ] General District Court

[ ] Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court

Under penalty of perjury, I, the undersigned

Complainant swear or affirm that I have reason to

believe that the Accused committed a criminal

offense, on or about

DATE OFFENSE OCCURRED June 2021 - August

2021 in the [X] City [ ] County [ ] Town

of Chesapeake

I base my belief on the following facts: (Print

ALL information clearly.)

Multiple incidents at my home where he physically

restrained me against my will, confiscated my phone

and car keys to trap me & prevent me from leaving,

and removed the ignition chip out of my car’s engine

so I couldn’t leave. He used force to hold me down

while I was screaming for help, which he later

laughed about. He has been stalking and harassing

me and on one-incident in late June he put me in a

chokehold until I almost passed out and he wouldn’t

free [initialed above: asc] me. I was and have been

scared for my life and have been unable to sleep

because he shows up at my door every few days.

Those incidents ocurred in front of my son who is

afraid as well, he is 3 years old and I fel helpless and

17a

afraid. He would not listen when I told him not to

touch me & he overpowered me several times.

The statements above are true and accurate to the

best of my knowledge and belief.

In making this complaint, I have read and

fully understand the following:

• By swearing to these facts, I agree to appear

in court and testify if a warrant or summons

is issued.

• The charge in this warrant cannot be

dismissed except by the court, even at my

request.

NAME OF COMPLAINANT (LAST, FIRST,

MIDDLE) (PRINT CLEARLY) Alaina [scribbled in

original] Cmelik, Alaina Stewart

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT /s/ Al— [(illegible

loops)]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this day.

DATE AND TIME 9/25/21 @ 11:35 AM

[ ] CLERK [X] MAGISTRATE [ ] JUDGE /s/ G— A- [(illegible)]

FORM DC-311 REVISED 07/11 (A203855 4/20)

[Text from right side of form]

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

ACCUSED: Name, Description, Address/Location

18a

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME

Stusalitus ,Alaina Stewart [heavily scribbled in

original] [written below: Leon Barcley]

COMPLETE DATA BELOW IF KNOWN

RACE W SEX M BORN MO. [X] DAY [X] YR. 1982

HT. FT. 5 IN. 9 WGT. 170 EYES Bl HAIR Br

SSN \XXX-XXX\-9369

[ ] Complainant is not a law-enforcement officer or

animal control officer. Authorization prior to

issuance of felony arrest warrant given by

[ ] Commonwealth ’s attorney

[X] Law-enforcement agency having

jurisdiction over alleged offense

NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE

OF WARRANT A. HERRERA 1311J8

DATE AND TIME AUTHORIZATION GIVEN

9/25/21 [half-formed @] 1058hRS

[Text on reverse of form]

on 7/13/2021 he removed the ignition aip [sic]

from my car’s engine,

took my car keys &

my phone and prevented me from leaving

on 7/22 he physically restrained me and

stopped me from leaving

on 8/12 he took my phone and car keys again.

19a

on 8/15 he physically restrained me and held

my wrists not freeing me no matter what I did,

following me around for 1 hour+, not leaving

me alone

7/13/2021 - following me around the house, I felt

powerless to leave or gethelp

7/22/2021 - wrapped his arms around my body and

would not let go no mater what I said or did, about

45 mins -1 hour, used physical force to hold me down

and would not release me

8/12/2021 - took my stuff and kept following me

around the house, blocking doorways and paths and

unlocking locked doors in my house to get to me, he

pulled me by my wrist out of my son’s bed and into

the other room

on 8/15/21 - he blocked my path and kept unlocking

my locked doors, he pulled me out of bed by my wrist

and dragged me to the other room against my will,

would not leave me alone or listen to me, held my

wrists and kept me pushed up against the wall so I

couldn’t get away from him

20a

APPENDIX D

[Text from left side of form]

WARRANT OF ARREST - FELONY

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Va. Code §

19.2- 71,-72

CITY OR COUNTY Chesapeake

[ ] General District Court [ ] Criminal [ ]

Traffic

[X] Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court

TO ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER:

You are hearby commanded in the name of the

Commonwealth of Virginia forthwith to arrest and

bring the Accused before this Court to answer the

charge that the Accused, within this city or county,

on or about 07/22/2021 did unlawfully and

feloniously in violation of Section

18.2- 47

, Code of Virginia:

[(illegible)]ce, intimidation or deception, and without

legal justification or excuse, seize, take, transport,

detain or secrete [handwritten: Alaina] Stewart

Cmelik, his cohabitant within the past 12 months,

with the intent to deprive that person of her

personal liberty or to withhold or conceal her from

any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled

to her charge.

OR#: 21-102776

[VERTICAL STAMP:

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE

2021 OCT 15 PM 2:32

21a

CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT

BY/s/A- [(illegible)] D.C.]

I, the undersigned, have found probable cause to

believe that the Accused committed the offense

charged, based on the sworn statements of

Alaina Stewart Cmelik

Complainant.

,

CCRE/Fingerprinting Required

DATE AND TIME ISSUED 09/25/2021 11:44 AM

[ ] CLERK [X] MAGISTRATE [ ] JUDGE /s/ G— A

- [(illegible)] [Printed text below: George Afentakis]

TAKE BUCCAL SAMPLE IF LIDS SHOWS NO

DNA SAMPLE IN DATA BANK

FORM DC-312 (MASTER, PAGE ONE OF TWO)

03/21

Check if sample previously taken:

sample taken for this arrest:

Check if

[Text from right side of page]

CASE NO. JA100005-01-00

ACCUSED:

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME

Stusalitus, Leon Barcley

ADDRESS/LOCATION Unknown

22a

COMPLETE DATA BELOW IF KNOWN

RACE W SEX M BORN MO. DAY YR. [XX/XX]/1982

HT. FT. 5’ IN. 9” WGT. 170 EYES BLU HAIR BRO

SSN [XXX-XX]-9369

D.L.#

STATE

[ ] Commercial Driver’s License

[ ] Commercial Motor Vehicle [ ] Hazardous

Materials

CLASS _5

FELONY

[A] EXECUTED by arresting the Accused named

above this day:

DATE AND TIME OF SERVICE 9-25-2021 @ 2025

INV. JWGREGORY, Arresting Officer

BADGE NO., AGENCY AND JURISDICTION

126591 CSO 126

for

SHERRIF J. OSULLIVAN

Attorney for the Accused:

Faith Winstead (A)

Short Offense Description (not a legal definition):

ABDUCTION: BY FORCE,ETC, TO DEPRIVE OF

LIBERTY

Offense Tracking Number:

550JM2100021035

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY

Virginia Crime Code: KID-1010-F5

23a

[Text from right side margin]

F

Hearing Date/Time 9/27/21 [text above: 5] #4

12/21/21 Room #4

1

[Vertical barcode]

FELONY

[REVERSE SIDE OMITTED AS NON-MATERIAL]

24a

APPENDIX E

[Text from left side of form]

WARRANT OF ARREST - FELONY

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Va. Code §

19.2- 71,-72

CITY OR COUNTY Chesapeake

[ ] General District Court [ ] Criminal [ ]

Traffic

[X] Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court

TO ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER:

You are hearby commanded in the name of the

Commonwealth of Virginia forthwith to arrest and

bring the Accused before this Court to answer the

charge that the Accused, within this city or county,

on or about 08/12/2021 did unlawfully and

feloniously in violation of Section

18.2- 47

, Code of Virginia:

[(illegible)]e, intimidation or deception, and without

legal justification or excuse, seize, take, transport,

detain or secrete Alaina Stewart Cmelik, his

cohabitant within the past 12 months, with the

intent to deprive that person of her personal liberty

or to withhold or conceal her from any person,

authority or institution lawfully entitled to her

charge.

OR#: 21-102776

[VERTICAL STAMP:

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE

2021 OCT 15 PM 2:32

25a

CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT

BY/s/ A- [(illegible)] D.C.]

I, the undersigned, have found probable cause to

believe that the Accused committed the offense

charged, based on the sworn statements of

Alaina Stewart Cmelik

Complainant.

,

CCRE/Fingerprinting Required

DATE AND TIME ISSUED 09/25/2021 11:54 AM

[ ] CLERK [X] MAGISTRATE [ ] JUDGE /s/ G— A

- [(illegible)] [Printed text below: George Afentakis]

TAKE BUCCAL SAMPLE IF LIDS SHOWS NO

DNA SAMPLE IN DATA BANK

FORM DC-312 (MASTER, PAGE ONE OF TWO)

03/21

Check if sample previously taken:

sample taken for this arrest:

Check if

[Text from right side of page]

CASE NO. JA100005-02-00

ACCUSED:

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME

Stusalitus, Leon Barcley

ADDRESS/LOCATION Unknown

26a

COMPLETE DATA BELOW IF KNOWN

RACE W SEX M BORN MO. DAY YR. [XX/XX]/1982

HT. FT. 5’ IN. 9” WGT. 170 EYES BLU HAIR BRO

SSN [XXX-XX]-9369

D.L.#

STATE

[ ] Commercial Driver’s License

[ ] Commercial Motor Vehicle [ ] Hazardous

Materials

CLASS _5

FELONY

[A] EXECUTED by arresting the Accused named

above this day:

DATE AND TIME OF SERVICE 9-25-2021 @ 2023

INV. JW GREGORY, Arresting Officer

BADGE NO., AGENCY AND JURISDICTION

126591 CSO 126

for

SHERRIF J. O’SULLIVAN

Attorney for the Accused:

Faith Winstead (A)

Short Offense Description (not a legal definition):

ABDUCTION: BY FORCE,ETC, TO DEPRIVE OF

LIBERTY

Offense Tracking Number:

550JM2100021035

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY

Virginia Crime Code: KID-1010-F5

27a

[Text from right side margin]

F

Hearing Date/Time 9/27/21 [text above: 5] #4

12/21/21 #4

[Vertical barcode]

FELONY

[REVERSE SIDE OMITTED AS NON-MATERIAL]

28a

APPENDIX F

[Text from left side of form]

WARRANT OF ARREST - FELONY

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Va. Code §

19.2- 71,-72

CITY OR COUNTY Chesapeake

[ ] General District Court [ ] Criminal [ ]

Traffic

[X] Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court

TO ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER:

You are hearby commanded in the name of the

Commonwealth of Virginia forthwith to arrest and

bring the Accused before this Court to answer the

charge that the Accused, within this city or county,

on or about 08/15/2021 did unlawfully and

feloniously in violation of Section

18.2- 47

, Code of Virginia:

[(illegible)]ce, intimidation or deception, and without

legal justification or excuse, seize, take, transport,

detain or secrete Alaina Stewart Cmelik, his

cohabitant within the past 12 months, with the

intent to deprive that person of her personal liberty

or to withhold or conceal her from any person,

authority or institution lawfully entitled to her

charge.

OR#: 21-102776

[VERTICAL STAMP:

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE

2021 OCT 15 PM 2:32

29a

CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT

BY /s/ A- [(illegible)] D.C.]

I, the undersigned, have found probable cause to

believe that the Accused committed the offense

charged, based on the sworn statements of

Alaina Stewart Cmelik

Complainant.

,

CCRE/Fingerprinting Required

DATE AND TIME ISSUED 09/25/2021 11:57 AM

[ ] CLERK [X] MAGISTRATE [ ] JUDGE /s/ G— A

- [(illegible)] [Printed text below: George Afentakis]

TAKE BUCCAL SAMPLE IF LIDS SHOWS NO

DNA SAMPLE IN DATA BANK

FORM DC-312 (MASTER, PAGE ONE OF TWO)

03/21

Check if sample previously taken:

sample taken for this arrest:

Check if

[Text from right side of page]

CASE NO. JA100005-03-00

ACCUSED:

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME

Stusalitus, Leon Barcley

ADDRESS/LOCATION Unknown

30a

COMPLETE DATA BELOW IF KNOWN

RACE W SEX M BORN MO. DAY YR. [XX/XX]/1982

HT. FT. 5’ IN. 9” WGT. 170 EYES BLU HAIR BRO

SSN [XXX-XX]-9369

D.L.#

STATE

[ ] Commercial Driver’s License

[ ] Commercial Motor Vehicle [ ] Hazardous

Materials

CLASS _5

FELONY

[A] EXECUTED by arresting the Accused named

above this day:

DATE AND TIME OF SERVICE 9-25-2021 @ 2021

INV. JW GREGORY, Arresting Officer

BADGE NO., AGENCY AND JURISDICTION

126591 CSO 126

for

SHERRIF J. O’SULLIVAN

Attorney for the Accused:

Faith Winstead (A)

Short Offense Description (not a legal definition):

ABDUCTION: BY FORCE,ETC, TO DEPRIVE OF

LIBERTY

Offense Tracking Number:

550JM2100021035

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY

Virginia Crime Code: KID-1010-F5

31a

[Text from right side margin]

F

Hearing Date/Time 9/27/21 [text above: 5] #4

12/21/21 #4

[Vertical barcode]

FELONY

[REVERSE SIDE OMITTED AS NON-MATERIAL]

32a