USA v. Brantley et al

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:25-CR-00204–7
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
NICHOLAS CALVERT, 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
) 	ORDER
Defendant. 	)
The Court considers Defendant’s alleged violations of the terms of his pretrial release.
The Court held a bond revocation hearing on November 4, 2024. Minutes of Proceedings
[Non-Document] 11/4/2025. Defendant’s Appearance Bond (ECF No. 85) is hereby revoked
for the reasons herein. Defendant shall remain detained pending resolution of this criminal
case.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2025, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Ohio returned a
multi-defendant indictment for various narcotics and firearms offenses.1 ECF No. 1. Among
the nineteen persons indicted is Defendant Nicholas Calvert, who was arrested and released
on pretrial supervision under a $20,000.00 unsecured bond––mandating, inter alia, drug
testing and substance abuse treatment––on May 14, 2025. ECF No. 85. Defendant completed
inpatient treatment at Community Assessment and Treatment Services (CATS) on July 11,
2025. ECF No. 231. He relapsed in early September, twice testing positive for cocaine. ECF
1 See United States v. Brantley, et al., Case No. 1:25-Cr-00204 (N.D. Ohio filed May 1, 2025).
Case: 1:25-cr-00204-BYP Doc #: 252 Filed: 11/05/25 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25–CR–00204–14)
2
No. 231. After missing multiple therapy sessions, he was expelled from outpatient substance
abuse treatment at Riveon Mental Health and Recovery. ECF No. 232. Defendant also failed
to communicate with Pretrial Services and did not respond to his officer’s phone calls and text
messages. ECF No. 232. Pretrial Services sought and obtained a warrant from the Court on
September 19, 2025 for these violations and Defendant was arrested the following day, during
a traffic stop. ECF No. 233. A bond revocation hearing was held on November 4, 2025 at
3:00 PM in Youngstown, Ohio. Minutes of Proceedings [Non-Document] 11/4/2025.
Defendant’s criminal trial commences on March 9, 2026. ECF Nos. 181, 224.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A criminal defendant who violates a condition of supervised pretrial release “is subject
to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court” under
18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). See Warren v. United States, No. 21–1145, 2021 WL 9182947 (6th Cir.
2021). District courts analyze pretrial violations under § 3148 rather than § 3142.2 See United
States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 778 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. McKethan, 602 F.
Supp. 719, 722 (D.D.C. 1985) (concluding that § 3142 and § 3148 provide “quite different”
procedures for detention before trial). A court order resolving a violation of supervised release
requires a two-step analysis under § 3148(b):
(1) Whether there has been a violation of a condition of supervised release. See § 3148(b)(1).
(2) If yes, whether the subsequent revocation of pretrial release is appropriate. See § 3148(b)(2).
Revocation of pretrial release is mandatory only if, after a hearing, a court concludes––
under step one––that there is: (a) probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a
2 Section 3142 governs only initial pretrial detention orders, wherein a court
determines whether a defendant will be (a) detained until trial or (b) released under pretrial
supervision. Conversely, § 3148 takes effect only after issuance of an initial pretrial release
order, and only when a defendant violates a condition of supervised release.
Case: 1:25-cr-00204-BYP Doc #: 252 Filed: 11/05/25 2 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25–CR–00204–14)
3
federal, state, or local crime while on release; or (b) clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant has violated any other condition of release; and the court further concludes––under
step two––that: (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will ensure
that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the
community;3 or (b) the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of
conditions of release. See § 3148(b)(1)–(2).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Defendant violated the mandatory terms of pretrial release.
Guided by § 3148(b), the Court applies step one and finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Defendant violated the mandatory conditions of his pretrial release by: (1)
twice testing positive for cocaine; (2) failing to complete outpatient substance abuse
treatment; and (3) failing to submit to Pretrial Services supervision. Release Status Report,
ECF No, 231 at PageID ##: 854–55. The Pretrial Violation Reports dated September 17,
2025 (ECF No. 231), September 19, 2025 (ECF No. 232), and October 31, 2025 (ECF No.
251) constitute requisite evidence of these violations under § 3148(b)(1)(B).
B. Defendant is unlikely to comply with reinstated terms of pretrial release.
Guided by § 3148(b), the Court applies step two and finds that revocation of pretrial
release is warranted because Defendant is unlikely “to abide by any condition or combination
of conditions of release.” § 3148(b)(1)(B). The Sixth Circuit recognizes the Court’s broad
discretion to make this determination, see United States v. Nero, 854 F. App'x. 14, 18 (6th
Cir. 2021), and will not disturb it unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. Hazime, 762
F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1985).
3 Based on the factors set forth in § 3142(g).
Case: 1:25-cr-00204-BYP Doc #: 252 Filed: 11/05/25 3 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25–CR–00204–14)
4
First, Mr. Calvert was ordered to not use or unlawfully possess any narcotics or
controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802) unless prescribed by a licensed medical
practitioner. ECF No. 86. Since his release from in-patient drug treatment, however, he has
tested positive for cocaine on September 13, 2025 and September 11, 2025. ECF No. 251.
He is unlikely to avoid continued narcotics abuse if pretrial release is reinstated.
Second, Defendant was ordered to complete substance abuse and mental health
treatment. ECF No. 86 Although he successfully finished inpatient treatment in July 2025,
he has subsequently been expelled from outpatient treatment for non-compliance.4 ECF No.
251. He is unlikely to successfully complete or comply with additional substance abuse
treatment if pretrial release is reinstated.
Third, Defendant was ordered to submit to the supervision of Pretrial Services, yet has
been consistently non-communicative. ECF No. 86. On September 18, 2025, Pretrial
Services sent Defendant a text message requesting that he call his Pretrial Services supervisor.
ECF No. 251. Pretrial Services confirmed––via read notification––that Defendant received
the message, but Defendant neither responded nor called back as directed. ECF No. 251. He,
again, ignored and failed to return a phone call from Pretrial Services on September 19, 2025.
ECF No. 251. He is unlikely to submit to the supervision of Pretrial Services if pretrial
release is reinstated.
Finally, although Defendant is neither likely to flee, his use of cocaine perpetuates a
danger to the community. He claims to be actively employed and insured through his father’s
4 On September 19, 2025, Pretrial Services learned from Riveon Health that Mr.
Calvert missed two consecutive intensive outpatient sessions, stopped returning calls,
provided no medical documentation for his claimed illness, and had shown limited and
sporadic participation, prompting a recommendation for higher-risk treatment.
Case: 1:25-cr-00204-BYP Doc #: 252 Filed: 11/05/25 4 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25–CR–00204–14)
5
business, but this has not been confirmed and is contradicted by his seeking new trades
opportunities in Cleveland. ECF No. 251. Pretrial Services repeatedly tried to contact
Defendant’s father for confirmation of Defendant’s employment-related claims, but all
attempts have been unsuccessful. ECF No. 251 When Pretrial Services visited Defendant’s
home on September 11, his father was not present. ECF No. 251. It appears, therefore, that
Defendant does not have reliable community support. Combined with his violations, this
instability makes it unlikely that Defendant can comply with the Court’s orders if pretrial
release is reinstated.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Appearance Bond (ECF No. 85) is hereby revoked. Defendant is
remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated
representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable,
from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
Defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense
counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility must deliver Defendant to a
representative of the United States Marshals Service for the purpose of an appearance for a
Court proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 5, 2025 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cr-00204-BYP Doc #: 252 Filed: 11/05/25 5 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>