USA v. Andres et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Dezmond Ian Andres, Jr., 	) 	Case No. 1:26-cr-003
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant is charged in an Indictment with the offense conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute controlled substances. (Doc. No. 2). On June 30, 2026, the court issued an
order releasing Defendant on July 2, 2026, to the Prairie Recovery Center (“PRC”) subject to several
conditions. Among these conditions were the requirements that Defendant fully participate in the
PRC’s programming and immediately surrender to the custody of the United States Marshal Service
(“USMS”) should he be terminated from the PRC for any reason. (Doc. No. 71).
On August 12, 2026, the Pretrial Services Office filed a petition for action on Defendant’s
conditions of pretrial release and a warrant for Defendant’s arrest was issued. (Doc. Nos. 80 and
81). 	The petition alleged that Defendant had failed to surrender to the USMS after he was
terminated from the PRC on August 10, 2026, for threats he had been making to other residents.
(Id.).
Defendant was arrested on August 12, 2026. (Doc. No. 82). On August 14, 2026, he appeared
before the court and was ordered detained pending further hearing on August 18, 2026. (Doc. Nos.
84 and 85). Following the hearing on August 18, 2026, at which Defendant advised that he was not
contesting the allegations contained in the petition, the court issued an order revoking Defendant’s
1
Case 1:26-cr-00003-DLH Document 93 Filed 10/02/26 Page 1 of 3

pretrial release and remanding him to the custody of the USMS pending trial. (Doc. No. 87).
On motion by Defendant, the court issued an order on September 2, 2026, that added
Defendant’s name to the waiting list for a residential reentry placement. (Doc. Nos. 90 and 91).
On September 25, 2026, Defendant filed a motion requesting to be released to Providence
House on October 16, 2026 so that he can participate in its inpatient treatment program. (Doc. No.
92). He advised that his family will arrange for his transport.
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).
The availability of a placement for Defendant at Providence House in mid-October is new
information. 	The court also appreciates that Defendant is very young and could benefit from
treatment given his history of substance abuse. The court is nevertheless disinclined to release
Defendant to Providence House given his criminal history and demonstrated inability to comply with
this court’s orders. The initial bond report reflects that Defendant twice reported to the Prairie
Recovery Center in 2025 only to walk away before completing treatment and engaged in criminal
activity while on release with the State. Additionally, after being released by this court to the PRC,
Defendant admittedly made threats to other residents that ultimately resulted in his expulsion from
the PRC and he failed to turn himself in as directed. Consequently, this court is not persuaded that
the availability of a placement in a third treatment facility rebuts the presumption of detention.
Even if Defendant could rebut the presumption of detention, it would remain a factor for
consideration and the court would turn to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors. In so doing the
2
Case 1:26-cr-00003-DLH Document 93 Filed 10/02/26 Page 2 of 3

court would reach the conclusion there are presently no conditions available that will reasonably
assure Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings and the safety of the community. The court
is not persuaded that a Providence House placement can provide sufficient structure, security, and
supervision given Defendant’s history. Rather, the court finds that the only option at present that
can provide the requisite level of supervision and security is a residential reentry placement, which
is regrettably unavailable at present.
Defendant’s motion for release to Providence House (Doc. No. 92) is DENIED. Defendant’s
name shall remain on the waiting list for a residential reentry placement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:26-cr-00003-DLH Document 93 Filed 10/02/26 Page 3 of 3