USA v. Agbaje

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Christopher Agbaje,
d/b/a Ace Telecommunications & Consultancy
Services, Inc.,
d/b/a Acorin USA, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:22-cr-41
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DETENTION ORDER
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Request for Review of Detention Order filed
by the Defendant on March 13, 2024. Doc. No. 29. The Defendant asks the Court to vacate United
States’ Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter’s Order (Doc. No. 28) denying theDefendant’s
Motion for Release from Custody. Id. The United States filed a Response on March 13, 2024. Doc.
No. 30
[¶ 2] 	The Defendant only asks the Court to review Magistrate Judge Hochhalter’s Order for
purportedly referencing his release plan to the city of Burnsville, Minnesota. According to the
Defendant, his plan calls for his release to Barnsville, Minnesota, which is within 30 minutes from
his Defense Counsel’s Office. Burnseville is hours away from Defense Counsel. This is
insufficient to warrant review of Magistrate Judge Hochhalter’s Order. Even if the Defendant’s
proposed release plan were to release him to the same city as Defense Counsel’s office, that would
not obviate the need for him to remain detained pending trial. The Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Hochhalter that the Defendant is a flight risk. He has no connection to the District of North
Case 1:22-cr-00041-DMT Document 43 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 2

Dakota. He was indicted by the Grand Jury on March 22, 2022. Doc. No. 1. He was not arrested
on the warrant until March 19, 2023, while in the United Kingdom. Doc. No. 20. He contested
extradition until November 16, 2023, at which point he agreed to extradition. Id. Regardless of his
potential release location, he constitutes a flight risk.
[¶ 3] 	In short, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the Defendant’s request,
and Magistrate Judge Hochhalter’s Order. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusion of
Magistrate Judge Hochhalter’s Order and hereby adopts it on this de novo review. See United
States v. Cook, 87 F.4th 920, 924-25 (8th Cir. 2023) (“If the district court agrees fully with the
magistrate’s order and reasons, it may adopt the order. Here, the district court reviewed the same
record and factual findings and agreed fully with the magistrate judge’s decision. Adopting that
decision ‘obviate[d] the need for the district court to prepare its own written findings of fact and
statement of reasons.’” (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir.
1988)). Accordingly, the Defendant’s Request for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order
is DENIED.
[¶ 4] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED March 27, 2024.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:22-cr-00041-DMT Document 43 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 2