USA v. Marcellais

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING APPEAL FROM
) 	MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
vs. 	)
)
Rhawnie Marcellais, 	) 	Case No. 3:23-cr-33
)
Defendant. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
Defendant Rhawnie Marcellais appeals the March 30, 2023, order denying her motion for
release from custody (Doc. No. 19) by United States Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal. Doc.
No. 21. The United States opposes the appeal. Doc. No. 26. Marcellais replied. Doc. No. 31.
Marcellais was ordered detained pending trial by Judge Senechal after a detention hearing
on March 9, 2023. Doc. Nos. 14, 15. Judge Senechal ordered, “At this time, RRC [residential re-
entry center] placement is the least restrictive alternative available to reasonably assure the safety
of the alleged victim. [Marcellais] will be allowed release to an RRC when funding for that
placement is available.” 	Doc. No. 15. 	However, Judge Senechal explained that if Marcellais
completed an evaluation for placement at an alternative facility, the Court may consider release to
a treatment facility. Doc. No. 14. On March 29, Marcellais filed a motion for release from custody,
asserting that she “has been able to develop an appropriate alternative to Residential Re-entry
Placement in that she was accepted into a sober living house” in Minot, North Dakota. Doc. No.
19. 	Judge Senechal denied the motion, explaining “[t]he pretrial services officer opposes the
motion, based on the agency’s past experience with the facility.” Doc. No. 21. Marcellais appeals
that decision.
Case 3:23-cr-00033-PDW Document 33 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 2

2
A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order of detention de novo. See 18 U.S.C. §
3145(b); United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Having
independently reviewed the nature and circumstances of the offenses at issue, the weight of the
evidence against Marcellais, her history and characteristics, and the nature and seriousness of the
danger to the community by her release, the Court agrees with Judge Senehal’s decision to deny
release to the particular facility requested by Marcellais. However, this order does not preclude
Marcellais from filing another motion seeking release to an approved facility. See Doc. No. 21.
After careful review, Marcellais’s appeal (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED. She will remain in
custody pending trial or until RRC placement is available at an approved facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of May, 2023.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:23-cr-00033-PDW Document 33 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 2