USA v. Adams et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	RECONSIDERATION
vs. 	)
)
Ceejay Truffle Siers, 	) 	Case No. 1:20-cr-068
)
Defendant. 	)
On October 16, 202, defendant filed a motion requesting to be released from custody in
order 	to 	participate 	in 	an 	inpatient 	treatment 	program 	at 	the 	Summit 	Prairie 	Recovery
Center("Summit Prairie") in Raleigh, North Dakota. (Doc. No. 431). On October 20, 2020, the
court issued an order denying the motion without prejudice, explaining:
The 	Court 	is 	broadly 	supportive 	of 	treatment 	for 	this 	Defendant,
and appreciates his interest in participating in such a program. However, the Court
has been advised by the United States Pretrial Services Office that one or
more 	of Defendant’s co-defendants are participating in treatment 	at 	Summit
Prairie, and the Court is not inclined to release defendant into a situation
where he would be in close contact with a co-defendant.
(Doc. No. 439).
On November 27, 2020, defendant filed a "Motion to Re-Consider Pretrial Release to Attend
His Grandmothers Funeral and Outpatient Treatment." (Doc. No. 503). Defendant advises that his
grandmother recently passed away. He requests to be conditionally released to his mother so that
he can attend funeral services scheduled for his grandmother on November 30, 2020. Additionally,
he requests that he be permitted to thereafter remain at his mother's residence so that he can
perhapsparticipate in a nearby outpatient treatment program.
The court is not inclined to release defendant at this time. 	First, while the court is
sympathetic to defendant's loss, it does not view travel from a detention facility to attend the
1
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 504 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 2

funeralof a family member, particularly in light of the increasing pandemic health risks in North
Dakota,as compelling reason for release under the applicable statutes. Second, while defendant's
desire toobtain treatment is laudable, his treatment plan lacks specifics and he has otherwise failed
to addressthe concerns expressed by the court when it first ordered him detained. 	Defendant's
motion (Doc. No. 503) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of November, 2020.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 504 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2