USA v. Bevier-Dukes et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Charles Edward Bevier-Dukes, 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cr-141
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant was initially charged by way of a Complaint. (Doc. No. 1). He made his initial
appearance on July 15, 2022, and, on motion by the United States, was ordered detained pending
a combined preliminary and hearing on July 20, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 4, 7). 	The court subsequently
continued the combined preliminary and detention hearing until July 25, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13,
15).
The court convened defendant’s combined preliminary and detention hearing on July 25,
2022. (Doc. No. 16). At the outset of the proceedings, defendant waived in open court his right a
preliminary hearing and detention hearing. (Doc. No. 17). The court accepted his waiver, ordered
him detained, and placed him the waiting list for a residential reentry placement. (Id.).
On August 4, 2022, the Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging defendant with two
offenses: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl; and (2)
possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. (Doc . No. 20). On August 10, defendant appeared
before the court and was arraigned. (Doc. No. 23).
Defendant is currently in Marshals Service custody at the Ward County Jail. On September
9, 2022, he filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider its detention order. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26).
1
Case 1:22-cr-00141-DMT Document 27 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 3

Advising that North Dakota Adult & Teen Challenge (“Teen Challenge”) has accepted his
application for admission into its residential faith-based drug and alcohol program, he requests to
be to transported by the Marshals Service to Teen Challenge’s facility in Mandan and conditionally
released upon his arrival.
The Bail Reform Act provides that 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). Consequently, “to reopen a detention hearing a defendant
must, first, present information that was not known or available to him at the time of his original
detention hearing, and then, second, show that such information is material to and has a substantial
bearing on whether he should remain detained.” 	United States v. Rolenc, No. 20-CR-137
(NEB/ECW), 2021 WL 211253, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2021).
Having reviewed the record, the court is presently disinclined to “reopen” the detention
hearing that defendant previously waived or to otherwise reconsider its detention order.
“Information is ‘material' for purposes of section 3142(f)(2) only if it indicates that the defendant
is less likely to flee or fail to appear or that the defendant is less likely to pose a danger to the
community or others.” United States v. Smith, 337 F.R.D. 366, 369 (N.D. Fla. 2020). Here, the
information provided by defendant–that he has secured a placement at Teen Challenge–does not
rebut the presumption of detention that exists in this case given the nature of his charged offenses.
Moreover, it does not does address the danger or risk of flight that defendant poses or otherwise tip
the balance of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors in favor of his release. Thus, it is not “material” for
2
Case 1:22-cr-00141-DMT Document 27 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 3

purposes of § 3142(f)(2) . Having consulted with the Pretrial Services Office, the court also has
concerns regarding Teen Challenge's ability to provide the required level of security, structure, and
supervision that would be required given defendant's criminal history, which includes a conviction
for a violent offense, a history of institutional misconduct, and a history of noncompliance with
court-imposed conditions of his parole. Previously, when ordering detained, the only release option
that the court was willing to entertain was a placement in a residential reentry center. There is
presently no space available for defendant at such a center. Consequently, release is presently not
an option.
In sum, the court finds that Defendant is not a viable candidate for release to Teen Challenge
given the nature of his charged offenses, his history, the lack of any material information to warrant
reopening the detention hearing, and the presumption of detention, which remains a factor that the
court can consider. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the court's detention
order and for transport (Doc. Nos. 25, 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of September, 2022.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:22-cr-00141-DMT Document 27 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 3