USA v. George

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
GREGORY GEEGI GEORGE,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:25-cr-463-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVOKING PRETRIAL
RELEASE AND ORDERING DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Defendant Gregory Geegi George is charged by an indictment with Receipt of
Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1). His case is
set for trial in May 18, 2026 before United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade.
On November 12, 2025, the undersigned United States magistrate judge
released Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) pending trial subject to an Order
Setting Conditions of Release. See Dkt. No. 14.
Having been released on such conditions, “[a] person who has been released
under section 3142 of this title, and who has violated a condition of his 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 	attorney 	for 	the 	Government 	may 	initiate 	a 	proceeding 	for
revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the district court.
A judicial officer may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged
with violating a condition of release, and the person shall be brought
before a judicial officer in the district in which such person’s arrest was
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-2-
ordered for a proceeding in accordance with this section. To the extent
practicable, a person charged with violating the condition of release that
such person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period
of release, shall be brought before the judicial officer who ordered the
release and whose order is alleged to have been violated.
18 U.S.C. § 3148(b).
Section 3148(b) further provides that the Court “shall enter an order of
revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer – (1) finds that there
is – (A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or
local crime while on release; or (B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has
violated any other condition of release; and (2) finds that – (A) based on the 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 person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of
any other person or the community; or (B) the person is unlikely to abide by any
condition or combination of conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)-(2).
But Section 3148(b) further 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
danger to the safety of any other person or the community, and that the person will
abide by such conditions, the judicial officer shall treat the person in accordance with
the provisions of section 3142 of this title and may amend the conditions of release
accordingly.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) (“The judicial officer
may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of
release.”).
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-3-
On February 5, 2026, Defendant’s supervising pretrial services officer filed a
Report of Violation of Conditions of Pretrial Release, in which she reported:
COMES 	NOW 	Andrew 	S 	Abbott, 	U.S. 	Probation 	Officer,
presenting a report to the Court upon the conduct of defendant, Gregory
Geegi George, who was placed on pretrial release supervision by the
Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge David L Horan sitting in the Court at
Dallas, on November 13, 2025, under the following conditions:
(7)(y) the defendant shall not have access to any computer
without permission from pretrial services.
(7)(z) the defendant shall participate and comply with the
requirements of the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program,
contribution to the cost of the monitoring in an amount not to
exceed $40.00 per month.
The undersigned has information that the defendant has violated
such conditions in each of the following respects:
The defendant violated his conditions of release by possessing an
unauthorized cell phone at his residence. Specifically, on February 3,
2026, during the course of a home contact, the undersigned observed the
light of what appeared to be a phone or electronic device between the
couch cushions to the defendant's left. The device was in plain view and
without manipulating the couch or moving the cushion, the undersigned
was able to reach a black Samsung phone which was on and unlocked.
A cursory review of the phone found the Facebook application and
other applications open on the phone as well as the defendant's picture
in the phone profile settings. The undersigned did not observe child
sexual abuse material (CSAM) during this brief review of the phone. The
defendant was questioned about the phone, which at first, he indicated
was his girlfriend's; however, the defendant subsequently provided the
pattern unlock for the phone and his fingerprint opened the phone
confirming 	his 	ability 	for 	unrestricted 	access 	to 	the 	device. 	The
defendant's phone was seized as evidence of a violation during the home
contact.
On 	February 	4, 	2026, 	the 	defendant 	reported 	to 	the 	U.S.
Probation Office to discuss his non-compliance. During this office visit,
the defendant admitted to the undersigned that he had access to the
device for approximately three to four weeks and used it for job search
activities, banking/financial purposes, social media, games, and to view
the 	Texas 	Workforce 	Commission 	website. 	The 	defendant 	denied
possession of CSAM on the device and any contact with minors.
A prior petition has been submitted by the U.S. Probation Office
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-4-
relating to this defendant on December 17, 2025, for positive urinalysis
results for cocaine and methamphetamines. The Court ordered the
defendant's conditions modified to include substance abuse treatment
on that same date.
The undersigned suggests to the court that a warrant be issued
for the arrest of the defendant, and that a hearing be scheduled for
consideration of revocation of the defendant’s conditions of pretrial
release.
Dkt. No. 19 at 1-2.
The Court ordered that a summons be issued and that Defendant appear before
this Court to determine whether his conditions of prehearing release should be
revoked. See id. at 4.
The government then filed a Motion to Revoke Conditions of Pretrial Release,
in which it asserted:
The United States of America, by and through the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, files this Motion to Revoke
Conditions of Pretrial Release of Gregory Geegi George, and in support
shows as follows:
I.
On 	October 	7, 	2025, 	George 	was 	charged 	in 	a 	one-count
indictment charging receipt of child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1). (Dkt. 1.) On November 6, 2025, the
government filed a Motion for Detention and Motion to Continue
Hearing, Dkt. 12, invoking the rebuttable presumption against George
because there was probable cause to believe he had committed an offense
involving a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(2)(A). On November 7,
2025, George appeared before Magistrate Judge Brian McKay for an
initial appearance and arraignment. (Dkt. 10.) George was ordered
temporarily detained, and a detention hearing was set for November 12,
2025. (Dkt. 9.) On November 12, 2025, a detention hearing was held
before Magistrate Judge David L. Horan. (Dkt. 13.) George was ordered
released pending trial and placed on conditions of pretrial release. (Id.)
Specifically, 	George’s 	conditions 	of 	pretrial 	release 	included 	the
following:
(1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-5-
release.
(7) (m) not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled
substance defined in 21 U.S.C § 802, unless prescribed to defendant by
a licensed medical practitioner.
(q), (i)(2), (ii)(3), and (iii) Home detention (radio frequency) . you
are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment;
education; religious services, medical, substance use, or mental health
treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations;
activities approved by the court; or essential activities approved in
advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer. Pay all or
part of the cost of location monitoring, including equipment loss or
damage, based upon your ability to pay, as determined by the pretrial
services or supervising officer.
(y) the defendant shall not have access to any computer without
permission from pretrial services.
(z) 	the 	defendant 	shall 	participate 	and 	comply 	with 	the
requirements 	of 	the 	Computer 	and 	Internet 	Monitoring 	Program,
contribution to the cost of the monitoring in an amount not to exceed
$40.00 per month. As part of the Computer and Internet Monitoring
Program, …
(iii) The defendant shall not use any computer other than
the one the defendant is authorized to use, without prior approval
from the probation officer.
(v) The defendant shall not maintain or create a user
account 	on 	any 	social 	networking 	site 	(i.e. 	MySpace.com,
Facebook.com, AdultFriendFinder.com, etc.) that allows access to
persons under the age of 18, or allows the exchange of sexually
explicit material, chat conversations, or instant messaging. The
defendant shall not view and/or access any web profile of users
under the age of 18.
(ix) The defendant shall not use or own any device that
allows 	Internet 	access 	other 	than 	authorized 	by 	the 	U.S.
Probation Office. This includes, but is not limited to PDA's,
electronic games and cellular/digital telephones.
(Dkt. 14.) George acknowledged that he was aware of his conditions of
pretrial 	release 	and agreed 	to 	obey 	all 	conditions. 	(Id. 	at 4.) 	On
December 17, 2025, U.S. Probation Officer Andrew S. Abbott filed a
Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release, Dkt. 18, alleging
George violated his conditions of pretrial release by testing positive for
amphetamines and cocaine on December 2, 2025. On December 17,
George’s conditions were modified to include participation in inpatient
or outpatient substance use treatment, if directed by probation, and he
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-6-
was allowed to remain on pretrial conditions. (Dkt. 18 at 2.) On February
2, 2026, Officer Abbott filed a Report of Violation of Conditions of
Pretrial Release, Dkt. 19, alleging George violated his conditions of
pretrial 	release 	by 	possessing 	an 	unauthorized 	cell 	phone 	at 	his
residence that had not been approved by U.S. Probation and which had
the Facebook application open, among others. A hearing is currently set
for February 11, 2026, regarding George’s violation of his pretrial
release conditions. (Dkt. 20.)
II.
The government alleges that George violated the above listed
conditions of release and requests his conditions of release be revoked,
and George ordered detained pending the disposition of the instant case.
On October 7, 2025, a grand jury indicted George on one count of
receipt of child pornography. George is currently facing a term of
imprisonment with a minimum of five years and a maximum of twenty
years. At the time of the detention hearing, the government invoked the
rebuttal presumption that no condition or combination of conditions
would assure the Court that George was not a flight risk or danger to
the community. The government relied heavily on the fact that George
was a danger to the community based upon the nature of his offense—
an offense against minor children. At the time, it was not known that
George had used controlled substances prior to his arrest as he denied
any type of drug use within the last six years or so. (Pretrial Services
Report at 3.) Thus, this evidence was not known or available to the Court
for consideration in determining whether George should be released
pending disposition of his case. Based upon the available information,
the 	Court 	determined 	that 	the 	rebuttable 	presumption 	had 	been
overcome, and there were conditions or a combination of conditions that
the Court could set that would ensure George’s appearance and that he
would not be a danger to the community. Now George is before the Court
for violating the Court’s orders on more than one occasion and after
already being given a second chance by the Court.
First, George failed to report to the pretrial officer that he had
used amphetamines/methamphetamines and benzoylecgonine prior to
his arrest, resulting in him testing positive for those substances at his
post release intake interview. (Dkt. 18 at 2.) After being placed on
pretrial release conditions, George continued to use illegal substances,
testing positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. (Id.) On December
15, 2025, when questioned regarding the positive drug test, George told
his probation officer that he used cocaine and methamphetamine around
November 25, 2025. (Id.) On this same date, an instant drug screening
was done, and George again tested positive for cocaine; however, this
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-7-
was not sent to the lab for confirmation. (Id.) In possessing and using
these illegal substances, George violated state law by possessing a
controlled substance – cocaine and methamphetamine. Additionally, he
violated the conditions of this Court directing him to “not use or
unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substance.” (Id. at
1-2.) Considering George is on Home Detention with very limited
reasons that he can leave his home; it does beg the question of how he
gained 	access 	to 	methamphetamine 	and 	cocaine. 	Regardless, 	on
December 17, 2025, George was given a second chance and allowed to
remain on pretrial conditions so long as he participated in inpatient or
outpatient treatment if directed by a pretrial services officer. (Id. at 2.)
Second, on February 3, 2026, during a home visit, Officer Abbott
observed a cellular telephone between the couch cushions next to
George. (Dkt. 19 at 1.) The phone was unlocked and on. (Id.) When asked
about the phone, George lied and said it belonged to his girlfriend. (Id.)
However, George was able to unlock the phone with both a pattern and
his fingerprint. (Id.) Facebook, as well as other applications were open
on the phone. (Id.)
The following day when George reported to probation, he finally
admitted to having access to the cell phone for three to four weeks. (Id.)
He admitted to using it for social media, games, and job searches. (Id.)
Thus, at the very least, George possessed an unauthorized cell phone,
that did not contain any monitoring software, was connected to the
Internet, and which he used to access social media applications that
allow for access to minors and other individuals who are like George. If
George truly had access to the phone for only three to four weeks, then
he would have obtained it only a few weeks after being admonished of
the need to follow his conditions of release. In fact, George has only been
on pretrial release for less than three months and has violated those
conditions, not once but twice, and not in small ways, but in significant
ways—use 	of 	felony-level 	controlled 	substances 	and 	use 	of 	an
unauthorized cellphone with the Internet, accessing social media.
As such, George violated the conditions of his supervised release
by 	using 	cocaine, 	methamphetamine, 	an 	unauthorized 	cellular
telephone, the Internet, and social media application(s).
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	government 	requests 	that 	George’s
conditions of pretrial release be revoked, and George be detained
pending the conclusion of his case.
Dkt. No. 21 at 1-6.
On February 11, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the matter of possible
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-8-
revocation, 	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 Abbott and Special Agent
Pope and then heard argument from counsel.
The evidence, consistent with the facts recounted in the government’s motion
to revoke, shows clearly and convincingly that Defendant violated the conditions that
he must not use prohibited controlled substances and must not access any internet-
equipped devices without prior authorization by pretrial services and without the
Court-ordered monitoring software and must not access social media.
The Court understands Defendant has had difficulty finding employment
while on release and has struggled financially. But the record reflects a pattern of
Defendant violating various release conditions and then, only when caught, asking
forgiveness rather than reaching out to pretrial services on his own for assistance or
permission.
The Court already gave Defendant a second chance as to his prohibited
substance use, about which he had not been honest with pretrial services from the
time of his detention hearing. And now Defendant has again engaged in prohibited
conduct to which he has admitted only after being caught at an unannounced home
visit by pretrial services.
On this record, the Court finds that, based on Defendant’s conduct over the last
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-9-
two months, Defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination 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
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.
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID <pageID>

-10-
DATED: February 11, 2026
__________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cr-00463-K Document 24 Filed 02/11/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID <pageID>