USA v. Collier

IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE XAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
BRANDON DEVON COLLIER,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:25-cr-358-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVOKING PRETRIAL
RELEASE AND ORDERING DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
D efendant Brandon Devon Co lli er is ch arged by an indictment wit h Stealing a
Firearm from a Federal Firearm Licensee, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) a nd
924(i)(l) . His case is set for trial on February 23, 2026 before Senior Di str ict Jud ge
Jane J. Boyle.
On September 24, 2025, 	t he undersigned 	United States 	magistrate j ud ge
released Defendant under 18 U.S . C. § 3142(c) pending trial subject to a n Order
Setting Conditions of Release. See Dk t. No. 10.
Havin g been released on s uch conditions, "[a] person who has been released
under section 3142 of this tit l e, and who h as viol ated a condition of hi s release , is
subject to a revocation of release, 	an order of detention , and a prosecution for
contempt of court." 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a) . Under 18 U.S .C. § 3148(b),
[t]he 	attor ney 	for 	the 	Government 	may 	initiate 	a 	proceeding 	for
revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the district co urt.
A judicial officer may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person ch arged
with viol ating a condition of re l ease , and the person shall be brought
before a judicial officer in t he district in which such person 's arrest was
-1 -
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID <pageID>

ordered for a procee ding in accordance with this section. To the extent
practi ca bl e, a person charged with violating the condition of release that
such person not co mmit a Federal , Stat e, or lo cal crime durin g the period
of release, s hall be brought before the judi cial officer who ordered the
release and whose order is alleged to hav e been violated.
18 U.S.C. § 3148(b).
Section 	3148(b) furth er 	provides 	that th e 	Court "sha ll 	e nt er 	an order of
revocation a nd d ete ntion if, after a h ear ing , the judicial officer - (1) finds that there
is - (A) probable cause to believe t h at the person h as committed a Federal, Stat e, or
local crime while on release; or (B) clear and convincing evidence that the person ha s
violated any other condition of rel ease; and (2) finds that - (A) ba sed on th e factors
set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)] , there is no condition or combination of conditions of
release that will assure that the perso n will not fl ee or pose a dan ger to the sa fety of
any other person or the community; or (B) the person is unlik ely to abide by a ny
condition or combination of conditions of rel ease ." 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(l)-(2).
Bu t Section 3148(b) furth er provides that, "[i]f the judicial officer finds that
there are conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a
dan ger to the safety of any other person or the co mmuni ty, and th at t he person will
abide by such conditions, the judicial officer s hall treat the person in acc ordan ce with
the provisions of section 3142 of this title and may amend the conditions of release
accordingly." 18 U.S.C. § 3148; s ee also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) (" Th e judicial officer
ma y at any time amend the order to impose a dditional or differe nt conditions of
release.").
-2-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID <pageID>

On December 29, 2025, Defendant's supervising pretrial services officer filed a
Report of Violation of Conditions of Pr etr ial Release, in which she reported:
COMES NOW Frank Chavez, U.S . Probation Officer, presenting
a report to the Court upon the conduct of defendant , Brandon Devon
Collier, who was placed on pretrial release supervision by the Honorable
U.S. Magistrate Judge David L. Horan sitting in the Court at Dallas,
Texas, on September 24, 2025, under the following conditions:
(7b) Th e defendant must continue or actively seek e mployment.
(7h) Th e defendant must get medical or psychiatric treatment: mental
health evaluation and treatment.
(7m) The defendant must not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug,
or 	other 	controlled 	sub sta nces 	defined 	in 	21 	U.S.C. 	§ 802, 	unless
pr escribed by a licensed m ed ical practition er.
(7o) 	The 	de fendant 	must 	participat e 	in 	a 	program 	of inpatient 	or
outpatient substance abuse therapy and counseling if directed by the
pretrial services office or s upervi s ing officer.
Th e und ers igned ha s information that the defe ndant ha s violated
such conditions in each of the following respects:
On 	September 	30, 	2025, 	the 	defendant 	reported 	to 	the 	U.S.
Probation 	Office 	for 	an 	orientation 	to 	supervision . 	During 	the
orientation , 	the 	defendant 	de monstrat ed 	reluctancy 	to 	partake 	in
treatment imposed by the Court. The de fendant became defensive and
began raising his voice as U .S. Probation Officer Frank Chav ez (USPO)
Chavez explained hi s conditions of his release. The de fendant requested
to speak to a supervisor. Supervi s ing U.S. Probation Officer Bruno Perez
(SUSPO) Perez intervened. Th e defendant agreed to participate in the
treatment ser vices as required.
On the same date , the defendant submitted a urinaly s is which
yielded a presumptiv e pos itiv e result for mariju a na. The 	de fendant
report ed smoking marijuana daily. Th e defendant was told this first
exam would be use d as a ba seline and he would be allowed time to
detoxify. 	On 	October 	30, 	2025, 	he 	tested 	n ega tive 	for 	all 	illicit
substances.
On October 6, 2025 , the de fendant called to report he did not want
to 	attend 	mental 	health 	counseling. 	He 	cited 	transportation 	and
financial iss ues as being the 	reasons 	he could not be pr ese nt. 	The
defendant 	asked 	USPO 	Chavez for 	money 	and 	to 	take 	him 	to 	his
appointments 	since he 	wa s be ing forced 	to 	go. 	Th e 	defe ndant wa s
admonished for making such comments and his treatment plan wa s
later modified to allow him to atte nd virtually.
-3-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID <pageID>

On 	the 	same 	date, 	USPO 	Chavez 	discussed 	the 	defendant's
noncompliance and negative attitude toward supervision with defense
counsel. USPO Chavez explained the efforts taken to get the defendant
enrolled in treatment services and his hesitation to follow the Court's
order. Defense counsel agreed to speak to the defendant regarding his
involvement in pretrial supervision.
On October 27, 2025, the defendant failed to report for his virtual
mental health counseling session with Phoenix Associates Counseling
Services (PACS). PACS contacted the defendant to reschedule , and he
told them he no longer needed to attend treatment. PACS reached out
to USPO Chavez to confirm the defendant's comments and they were
told that information was false.
On October 30, 2025, the defendant reported to the U .S . Probation
Office for the purpose of addressing his noncompliance. USPO Chavez
and Supervising U.S. Probation Officer DeAundra King (SUSPO King)
conducted 	an 	administrative 	hearing with 	the 	defendant 	who 	was
accompanied by his father. 	USPO Chavez discussed the defendant's
behavior and his inquiry regarding substance abuse treatment. USPO
Chavez explained to the defendant that he was already enrolled in
substance 	abuse 	treatment, 	but 	he 	could 	participate 	in 	a 	30-day
residential treatment if necessary. The defendant declined and denied
any substance abuse . SUSPO King addressed the defendant's attitude
toward supervision. He was instructed not to miss any additional mental
health appointments and to not mislead the counselors. The defendant
and 	his 	father 	agreed to 	work 	together to 	assist the 	defendant in
complying with his conditions of supervision.
On November 18, 2025, the defendant failed to report for random
drug testing as instructed at Homeward Bound Incorporated (HBI) in
Dallas, Texas. The defendant was contacted regarding his missed drug
test , and he subsequently submitted a urinalysis on November 19, 2025.
On November 20, 	2025, the defendant failed to report for his
virtual mental health counseling session with PACS for a second time .
The defendant became upset and began shouting over the phone when
he was confronted about missing his appointment. He stated he did not
need additional mental health treatment as he already had his own. He
requested to speak to a supervisor, and SUSPO Perez intervened and
agreed to remove the defendant from mental health treatment. The
defendant was instructed to provide 	verification regarding 	his own
provider to USPO Chavez.
The defendant reported he is receiving mental health treatment
from Lean On Me Psychiatry in Cedar Hill , Texas. On December 10,
2025 , USPO Chavez spoke to the facility and verified the defendant's
-4-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID <pageID>

counseling and mental health medications from this facility. The facility
provided a li st of mental h ea lth medications the defe ndant is prescribed
by their psychiatri st .
On 	Dece mber 	2, 	2025, 	the 	results 	from 	the 	urinalysi s 	the
defe ndant s ubmitt ed on November 19, 2025 , indi cated a presumptive
positive re s ult for m ar ijuana , amphetamines, and opiates. The urin e
speci men was subsequently confirmed positive for m ar iju a na , codeine ,
m et hamphetamine , and morphine by Alere Toxicology S erv ices. Alere
was 	provided 	the 	li st 	of 	medication s 	the 	defe ndant 	is 	c urrentl y
pr escribed, and they verified that none of the pr esc ribed me dications
would account for the pos itiv e drug results.
On 	Decemb er 	10, 	2025, 	the 	results 	from 	a 	urin alysis 	the
defe ndant s ubmitted on Dece mber 	1, 2025, indic ate d a presumptive
positive 	result 	for 	methamphetamine . 	The 	urine 	specimen 	wa s
subseq uently confirmed positive by Alere Toxicology Services.
On December 18, 2025, the defenda nt was in str uct ed to report to
the office on Dece mber 22, 2025, to address his positive urinalysis. On
Dece mber 22, 2025 , the defenda nt failed to report to the office as he had
previously agree d. Th e defendant wa s rescheduled for Dece mber 24,
2025.
On Dece mb er 24, 202 5, the defe ndant reported to the office to
address his positive urinaly sis reports. Th e defendant was accompanied
by hi s p are nt and denied us ing a ny drug s since being on pretrial rel ease .
He 	state d it was 	likely 	du e 	to 	hi s 	me nt al 	h ea lth 	medication. 	Th e
de fendant was notified the re s ult s of hi s test wer e confirmed by a lab ,
and the li st of medications that wa s provided by hi s psychiatrist would
not hav e caused any positive results. The defendant maintain ed he ha s
not used drug s. On the sa me day, the defe ndant notified USPO Chav ez
that MDMA would also cause him to test positive for methamphetamine.
When asked whether he had used MDMA, the defe ndant de nied using
that sub sta nce as well. USPO Chavez in str ucted the de fendant to notify
hi s attorney.
Th e defendant ha s demon strate d he is not inclined to follow any
in str uction by the Court or the U.S. Probation Office. He refuses to tak e
accountability 	and 	dis play s 	poor 	adjustment 	on 	sup er v1s1on.
Additionally, the defendant ha s failed to obtain employment since th e
onset of hi s sup erv ision. He ha s estab lished he is unwilling to mak e
him se lf available for sup erv ision despit e numerou s interv e ntions with
supervisors, hi s parent s, 	and hi s defense attorney. The undersigned
s ugg ests to the court that a warrant be iss ued for the arres t of the
defendant, 	and 	that 	a 	h ear ing 	be 	sche dul ed 	for 	consideration 	of
revocation of the defe ndant' s conditions of pr et rial release.
-5-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID <pageID>

Dkt. No. 17 at 1-3.
The Court ordered that a summons be issued and the defendant appear before
this Court to determine whether his conditions of prehearing release should be
revoked. See id. at 4.
The government filed a Motion to Revoke Pretrial Release, in which it asserted:
The United States of America respectfully asks the 	Court to
revoke 	pretrial 	release 	pending 	resolution 	of the 	above 	referenced
defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148 and in support of such motion
would show the Court as follows:
On August 5, 2025, a federal grand jury returned an indictment
charging the defendant with one count of stealing a firearm from a
federal firearm licensee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(u). (Dkt. 1.) On
September 24, 2025, the defendant made his initial appearance and was
placed on pretrial release 	supervision by United 	States Magistrate
Judge David L. Horan. (Dkt. 10.) Release conditions included:
(7b) The defendant must continue or actively seek employment.
(7h) The defendant must get medical or psychiatric treatment:
mental health evaluation and treatment.
(7m) The defendant must not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic
drug , or other controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802,
unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner.
(7o) The defendant must participate in a program of inpatient or
outpatient substance abuse therapy and counseling if directed by
the pretrial services office or supervising officer.
(Id.) The defendant advised the Court that he understood the conditions
of pretrial release and agreed to abide by them. (Id.)
On January 2, 2026, U.S. Probation filed a Report of Violation of
Conditions of Pretrial Release alleging that the defendant violated the
pretrial conditions. (Dkt. 17 .) In that same document the Court ordered
the 	government 	to 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	revoke 	consistent 	with 	the
information contained in Probation's report. (Id.)
In 	the 	report 	of 	violation, 	USPO 	Chavez 	alleged 	that 	the
defendant violated his conditions of release by: (1) failing to continue or
actively seek employment; (2) failing to get a mental health evaluation
-6-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID <pageID>

and treatment ; (3) using and/or possessing a controlled substance; and
(4) 	failing 	to 	participate 	in 	a 	program 	of inpatient 	or 	outpatient
substance abuse therapy and counseling.
On 	September 	30, 	2025, 	the 	defendant 	submitted 	a 	urine
specimen 	to 	the 	U.S. 	Probation 	Office , 	which 	tested 	positive 	for
marijuana , and he admitted to smoking marijuana daily.
On October 6, 	2025 , the 	defendant called USPO 	Chavez and
indicated he did not want to attend mental health counseling as ordered ,
citing financial issues as the reason. USPO Chavez ultimately modified
the defendant's plan to allow him to attend counseling virtually. On
October 27, 2025, and November 20, 2025, the defendant failed to report
for his virtual mental health counseling as required without a valid
excuse.
On November 18, 2025 , the defendant failed to report for random
drug testing as instructed. And on November 19, 2025, the defendant
submitted a urine specimen to the U.S. Probation Office, which tested
positive for marijuana, codeine, methamphetamine , and morphine.
On December 1, 2025 , the defendant submitted a urine specimen
to 	the 	U.S. 	Probation 	Office, 	which 	tested 	positive 	for
methamphetamine.
On December 22, 2025, the defendant failed to report to probation
as 	previously 	agreed 	to 	discuss 	his 	positive 	urinalysis. 	When 	he
ultimately reported on December 24, 2025, he denied any drug use.
Finally , the defendant has failed to obtain employment since the
onset of his supervision .
Based upon the foregoing, 	Collier's pretrial release should be
revoked. The defendant has clearly demonstrated an inability to abide
by the terms of release set by United States Magistrate Horan. Based
upon the conduct detailed above , it is reasonable to conclude that there
is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure
that Collier will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other
person or the community .
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), the government requests that
the defendant's pretrial release be revoked and that he be detained
pending the conclusion of his case.United States of America requests
that this Court revoke the supervised release of Billy Wayne Farris.
Dkt. No. 19 at 1-4.
On January 16, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the matter of possible
- 7-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID <pageID>

revo cat ion, 	at 	which 	Defendant 	appeared 	in 	person 	and 	through 	counsel 	and
announced ready to proceed. The government appeared through an Assistant United
States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and likewise announced ready.
The 	Court heard testimony from 	Probation 	Officer Chavez 	and 	a 	proffer
through counsel for Defendant and admitted Defense Exhibit 1 and then heard
argument from counsel.
The evidence shows clearly and convincingly that Defendant violated the
conditions that he not use prohibited controlled substances and that he participate in
and attend s ubstance abuse treatment as directed by pretrial services. De fendant has
tested positive for the use of prohibited substances that his prescription medications
cannot explain away, 	and he 	has repeatedly missed substance abuse 	treatment
sess10ns.
The Court determines that the existing combination of conditions is that least
restrictive 	combination 	of 	conditions 	that 	will 	reasonably 	assure 	Defendant 's
appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community while
Defe ndant is on release , and the Court det er mines that there are no other available
conditions that the Court can impose and that Defendant is likely to comply with.
And the Court finds that, ba se d on Defe ndant 's conduct over the la st month-
and-a-half, 	Defendant 	is 	unlikely 	to 	abide 	by 	any 	condition or 	co mbination 	of
conditions of release that the Court could set going forward.
Based on the facts explained above, and the Court's findings based on those
-8-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID <pageID>

facts , the Court grants the government's motion to revoke prehearing release in each
case 	and ORDERS that , under 	18 U.S.C. 	§ 3148(b), the 	Court 's 	Order Setting
Conditions of Release in each case is VACATED and Defendant's prehearing release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 is revoked.
It is ORDERED that Defendant be , and he is hereby, committed to the custody
of the Attorney General and United States Marshal pending further proceedings.
It is ORDERED that, while in the custody of the Attorney General and the
United States Marshal, Defendant shall be confined in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in
custody pending appeal.
It is ORDERED that Defendant, while being so held, be afforded reasonable
opportunity for private consultation with counsel.
It is further ORDERED that, on an Order of a Court of the United States or at
the request of the attorney for the Government , the person in charge of the corrections
facility in which Defendant is confined shall deliver Defendant to a United States
Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with court proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 16, 2026
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-9-
Case 3:25-cr-00358-B Document 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID <pageID>