USA v. Forsberg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
v. 	)
)
McKenzie Craig Forsberg, 	) 	Case No.: 1:24-cr-00007
)
Defendant. 	)
On July 25, 2024, Defendant executed a plea agreement, entering a guilty plea to Count
One of his Indictment: attempted coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2422(b). (Doc. Nos. 39, 44). Defendant’s sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for November
6, 2024. (Doc. No. 43).
On August 27, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of order of detention.
(Doc. No. 46). Defendant requested release to the third-party custody of his mother so he could
pay respect to his deceased brother, seek outpatient counseling, and get his affairs in order. On
September 5, 2024, the United States file a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. (Doc.
No. 48). The United States argued continued detention is mandated by statute. It also argued the
release plan was similar to one previously rejected by the court, Defendant has extensive criminal
history and a history of noncompliance with court orders, and the proposed residence lacked
security, supervision and structure. The court denied Defendant’s motion on September 9, 2024.
(Doc. No. 49).
On October 15, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Telephonic Status Conference. (Doc.
No. 52). Defendant requests to personally address the court concerning the court’s order denying
his request for release. (See Doc. No. 49) so he may explain his circumstances to the court.
Case 1:24-cr-00007-DLH Document 53 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 2

The court is disinclined to grant Defendant’s motion. While the court is empathetic
to Defendant pertaining to the passing of his brother, wish to get his affairs in order and to
seek outpatient counseling, the court is unwilling to reopen the issue of detention as
detention is mandated by statute and no extraordinary circumstances warrant Defendant’s
release. Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 52) is therefore DENIED.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2024.
Case 1:24-cr-00007-DLH Document 53 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2