USA v. Audi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 1:25-cr-00177-JKB
Salamah Audi 	:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUIDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REVISIT THE ISSUE OF DETENTION (ECF NOS. 29 and 32)
On July 3, 2025, this Court detained Defendant after a detention hearing, noting, inter alia, that
the charged conduct occurred while Defendant was under community supervision, and that, Treyway, the
proposed program selected to help supervise Defendant’s proposed release and provide mental health
services, could not effectively implement location monitoring. (ECF No. 15). On Defendant’s motion to
reopen that hearing (ECF No. 17), the Court held a second hearing on August 22, 2025, but found that
two other proposed programs, Nuwave Health Services and Temah Healthcare Services were unable to
provide appropriate supervision and monitoring. (ECF No. 21). At that hearing, the Government also
informed the Court that on or about July 23, 2025, notwithstanding her pretrial confinement, Defendant
had managed to deliver a threatening letter to a potential witness.
On January 20, 2026, Defendant filed another motion to reopen her detention hearing, this time
proposing that she be released into the custody of a community member/minister who is otherwise
employed as a case manager for a non-profit group serving veterans under electronic monitoring in the
individual’s apartment. (ECF No. 29 and 32). The Government opposes release. (ECF No. 30). Among
other things, the Government points out that, despite her detention, Defendant sent another letter on or
about October 14, 2025, this time to the home of a named victim, that admonishes the targeted individual
in unsettling ways. Defendant has also filed a reply to the Government’s opposition, which the Court has
Case 1:25-cr-00177-JKB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
also considered. (ECF No. 33). The Court also asked for a supplemental report from Pretrial Services
regarding the latest proposed release plan involving an individual as the proposed third-party custodian
which the Court received on February 2, 2026.
At both previous hearings, the Court has emphasized that the release conditions that provide
“reasonable assurance” of community safety in this case include a mental health program that can
adequately assess and address Defendant’s needs, along with an environment that can effectively enforce
a “home confinement” level of electronic monitoring in a setting acceptable to Pretrial Services. 	In its
February 2, 2026, supplemental report, Pretrial Services indicated that, despite several attempts, Pretrial
Services has been unable to contact the proposed third-party custodian.
The Court regards Pretrial Services’ approval in this particular case as a necessary prerequisite to
revisit Defendant’s potential release from custody. At present, that approval is lacking. Accordingly, the
Court will deny Defendant’s motion (ECF Nos. 29 and 32) WITHOUT PREJUIDICE to renewal should
Pretrial Services be in a position to approve either the proposed release plan or any other release plan
consistent with the Court’s previously stated requirements for release. In the event of such approval, any
renewed motion from Defendant need only address that particular issue.
February 6, 2026
Date 	J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cr-00177-JKB Document 34 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 2