USA v. Dixon, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
) 	ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
Plaintiff, 	) 	RECONSIDERATION
)
vs. 	)
) 	Case No.: 1:21-cr-070
Daquan Travis Dixon, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant is charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, two counts of
possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C), and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.§
1956(h). 	(Doc. No. 1). Following a detention hearing on April 15, 2021, the court issued order
conditionally releasing him at 4:00 p.m. on April 16, 2021, so that he could return to his residence
in Flint, Michigan. (Doc. No. 48). The order provided in part that he was to have no direct or
indirect contact with any co-defendants. (Id.).
On April 16, 2021, prior to defendant's scheduled release, the United States filed a motion
to revoke defendant's conditional release on the ground that he had violated the court's order by
texting a co-defendant after the court had issued its order but before he had been released from
custody to discuss their rendezvous upon his return to Flint. (Doc. No. 58). Attached to its motion
as an exhibit were copies of defendant's text messages. (Id.). The court granted the United States'
motion, revoked its order conditionally releasing defendant, and ordered that defendant was to
remain in custody. (Doc. No. 59).
1
Case 1:21-cr-00070-DLH Document 138 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 4

On June 4, 2021, defendant filed a motion requesting to be release to a residential reentry
facility. 	(Doc. No. 80). 	The court denied the motion without prejudice as there was not presently
space available for defendant at a residential facility. (Doc. No. 81). The court, did, however, add
defendant's name to the waiting list for a residential facility placement. (Id.).
On July 26, 2021, defendant filed a motion requesting to be released subject to GPS location
monitoring. (Doc. No. 86). Due to lack of bed space in this district, the United States Marshal in
this district relocated a number of pretrial detainees, defendant included, to a detention center
in Akron, Colorado. 	Defendant 	asserted 	that 	his relocation 	to 	this 	detention 	center was
hindering his ability to review discovery with counsel and otherwise assist in the preparation
of his defense. 	He further asserts that he is neither a danger nor a flight risk as evinced by his
limited criminal history.
Finding that there had been no material change in defendant’s circumstances, the court issued
an order on July 29, 2021, denying defendant’s motion for release subject to GPS monitoring. (Doc.
No. 89).
On August 12, 2021, defendant filed what the court construes as a motion for reconsideration
of its July 29, 2021, order. (Doc. Nos. 106). Therein he reiterated his objection to being housed in
Colorado, renewed his request for released subject to GPS monitoring, clarified where and with
whom he would be residing if released, and requested that the court reopen the detention hearing.
(Doc. Nos. 106, 109). On August 24, 2021, defendant filed an amended motion for reconsideration
of the court’s July 29, 2021, order in which he advised the court of his prospects for gainful
employment if released. (Doc. No. 113).
On September 1, 2021, the United States filed a response in opposition to defendants’
2
Case 1:21-cr-00070-DLH Document 138 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 4

motions for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 133). It asserts that there have been no material changes in
defendant’s circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the court’s order. It further asserts that
defendant’s detention outside of the district does not constitute ground for either reversing the
court’s detention order or for reopening his detention hearing as the decisions on where to house
detainees prior to trial are the bailiwick of the United States Marshal’s Service.
The court has reviewed the record and finds there has been no material change in defendant’s
circumstances to reconsider its order or reopen the detention hearing. 	The least restrictive
alternative to detention in this instant remains a placement at a residential facility. GPS location
monitoring is not a viable option under the present circumstances. Defendant has demonstrated an
inability to comply with this court’s order; he flagrantly disregarded this court's April 15, 2021 order
within hours of its issuance and made direct contact with a co-defendant. 	Given his actions, the
court finds it unlikely that GPS location monitoring will have a deterrent effect much less safeguard
against such conduct going forward.
The fact that defendant is presently being housed out-of-district by the United States
Marshals Service does not constitute a basis for reconsideration of the court’s detention order or for
reopening defendant’s detention hearing. 	Where defendant is housed pending trial is a matter a
matter left to the discretion of the United States Marshals Service.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4086, the Attorney General, “shall provide for the safe-keeping of
any person arrested, or held under authority of any enactment of Congress pending
commitment to an institution.” The Attorney General has delegated authority to USMS
regarding the custody of prisoners. See 28 CFR §§ 0.111(o), 0.111(k).
[¶3] 	“It is well-settled that an inmate does not possess a constitutional liberty
interest in remaining at a particular institution.” Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 852 F.
Supp. 1413, 1420 (S.D. 	Ill. 	1994), 	aff'd, 	52 	F.3d 	137 	(7th 	Cir. 	1995); 	see 	also
Saunders v. United States, 502 F.Supp.2d 493, 496 (E.D.Va. 2007) (“This open-ended
authority recognizes the Marshals Service's 	need 	to 	‘weigh 	concerns 	of 	expense,
3
Case 1:21-cr-00070-DLH Document 138 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 4

administration, payment, access to the premises, and the veritable plethora of factors’”
relative to placement.) (quoting Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 310 (4th Cir.1995));
Lyons v. Clark, 694 F. Supp. 184, 186 (E.D. Va. 1988), aff’d, 887 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1989)
(“The authority to designate the place of incarceration is squarely within the broad discretion
of the Attorney General of the United States.”).
(Doc. No. 755).
The court appreciates that defendant’s detention out-of-district poses certain inconveniences
for both parties. However, this is a matter for the United States Marshal to weigh and consider, not
the court. The location of defendant’s pretrial detention does not bear upon the issues of risk of non-
appearance or danger to community that the court must consider when determining whether or not
defendant is releasable.
Accordingly, defendant’s motions for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 106 and 113) are DENIED.
Defendant’s request for further hearing (Doc. No. 109) is deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of September, 2021.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:21-cr-00070-DLH Document 138 Filed 09/09/21 Page 4 of 4