USA v. Village Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	RECONSIDERATION
vs. 	)
)
Candace Village Center, 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cr-093
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant is charged in an Indictment with three offenses: (1) assaulting and resisting a
federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1); (2) domestic assault by a habitual offender in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1); and (3) assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). (Doc. No. 1). She made her initial appearance and was arraignment on August
18, 2022. (Doc. No. 5). On motion by the United States, she was remanded into Marshals Service
custody pending a detention hearing on August 23, 2022. (Doc. No. 8).
Following a detention hearing on August 23, 2022, the court ordered Defendant detained
pending a placement in a residential reentry facility as she did not have any other viable or verifiable
release options. (Doc. No. 18).
On October 6, 2022, Defendant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Detention.”
(Doc. No. 23). Defendant requests to be released to Hope’s Landing, a sober living facility located
in Dickinson, North Dakota. She emphasizes that Hope’s Landing requires its residents to submit
to random substance abuse testing and attend AA/NA meetings.
On October 12, 2022, the United States filed a response to Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No.
24). It advises that does not object to the placement of Defendant at Hope’s Landing provided that
1
Case 1:22-cr-00093-DLH Document 25 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 3

she first successfully completes an inpatient treatment program.
A detention hearing may be reopened “if the judicial officer finds that information exists that
was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue
whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as
required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).
Consequently, “to reopen a detention hearing a defendant must, first, present information that was
not known or available to him at the time of his original detention hearing, and then, second, show
that such information is material to and has a substantial bearing on whether he should remain
detained.” United States v. Rolenc, No. 20-CR-137 (NEB/ECW), 2021 WL 211253, at *5 (D. Minn.
Jan. 21, 2021).
Defendant has provided the court with information unavailable at the time of her detention
hearing, i.e., her eligibility for a placement at Hope’s Landing. However, the availability of such
a placement for Defendant does not have material bearing on the issue of detention.
The court previously determined that the only viable release option for Defendant was a
placement in a residential reentry facility. As there was no space immediately available for her at
a residential reentry facility, the court placed her on a waiting list and ordered her detained in the
interim. Hope’s Landing is not a treatment provider and does have the same oversight and structure
as a residential facility. 	It’s requirement that its residents join a support group and submit to
substance abuse testing, while admirable, is not tantamount to a treatment program.
Given Defendant’s criminal history and struggles with substance abuse as well as the nature
of her charged offenses, the court is not persuaded that a placement at Hope’s Landing will provide
the structure, security, and supervision that she requires. 	Consequently, the court finds that a
2
Case 1:22-cr-00093-DLH Document 25 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 3

placement at Hope’s Landing will not reasonably ensure the community’s safety and defendant’s
presence at future proceedings.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of its detention
order (Doc. No. 23). Should Defendant secure placement in a reputable inpatient treatment program,
she can renew her motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2022.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:22-cr-00093-DLH Document 25 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 3