USA v. Richard, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION
vs. 	) 	ORDER
)
Devon Agnes Richard, 	) 	Case No. 1:23-cr-180
)
Defendant. 	)
Before the court is a Motion to Reconsider Detention Order filed by Defendant on May 14,
2024. (Doc. No. 43). For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Defendant is charged in an Indictment with five offenses: (1) conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute controlled substances; (2) possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine; (3) possession with intent to distribute fentanyl; (4) possession with intent to
distribute cocaine; and (5) possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. (Doc.
No. 17).
Defendant was arrested on December 28, 2023, in the District of Arizona. (Doc. Nos. 24 and
27). She made her initial appearance in that district on December 29, 2023, and, on motion by the
United States, was ordered detained by the court pending a detention hearing on January 5, 2024.
(Doc. No. 24-1).
On January 5, 2024, the court in the District of Arizona held a detention hearing for
Defendant. (Doc. No. 24). Finding that Defendant had not rebutted the presumption of detention
and, in the alternative, there were no conditions available that would reasonably assure Defendant’s
appearance as required, the court ordered Defendant detained. (Doc. No. 24-2). In so doing, the
1
Case 1:23-cr-00180-DMT Document 44 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 3

court took note of Defendant’s lack of ties to Arizona, lack of resources, prior criminal history,
record of prior failures to appear in court as ordered, history of substance abuse, use of aliases or
multiple dates of birth or false identifying information, and the apparent weight of the evidence
against Defendant. (Id.).
On February 20, 2024, Defendant appeared before this court and was arraigned. (Doc. No.
29). On May 14, 2024, Defendant filed a motion requesting that this court to revisit the issue of
detention and place her on a waiting list for a residential reentry placement. (Doc. No. 43). She
stresses that a residential reentry placement was not something discussed at her detention hearing
in the District of Arizona.
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).
This court is presently disinclined to reconsider the detention order issued by the court in the
District of Arizona and release Defendant to a residential reentry facility immediately or at some
point in the future. First, Defendant has not presented any new information to rebut the presumption
of detention and warrant reopening the detention hearing; the fact that a residential reentry
placement was not explicitly discussed at Defendant’s detention hearing does not constitute new
information for purposes of § 3142(f). Second, Defendant's criminal history, record of prior failures
to appear in court as ordered, history of substance abuse, use of aliases or multiple dates of birth or
false identifying information, and the apparent weight of the evidence continue to weigh in favor
of her detention. Third, the placement of Defendant at a residential reentry center or the addition of
2
Case 1:23-cr-00180-DMT Document 44 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 3

Defendant’s name to the waiting list for such a placement are not otherwise viable options. There
is presently no space for Defendant at any residential reentry facilities in this district. The Pretrial
Services Office has also advised this court that Pinal County, Arizona, has an active detainer for
Defendant. Thus, if Defendant were released by this court, she would remain in custody on Pinal
County’s detainer pending transport. Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Detention Order (Doc. No.
43) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS S ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2024.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:23-cr-00180-DMT Document 44 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 3