USA v. Thornton et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
Plaintiff, 	) 	RECONSIDER DETENTION ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Dejuan Ranier Thornton, 	) 	Case No. 1:21-cr-240
)
Defendants. 	)
Before the court is a “Motion to Reconsider Detention Order” filed by Defendant on October
13, 2022. (Doc. No. 49). The court dispensed with a detention hearing and ordered Defendant
detained after he file a waiver of his right to a detention hearing on December 13, 2021. (Doc. Nos.
23, 26). Defendant is now asking the court to reconsider its detention order and release him to Adult
and Teen Challenge (“Teen Challenge”) so that he can participate in its inpatient treatment program.
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). “[T]o
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
1
Case 1:21-cr-00240-DMT Document 50 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 2

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–is new.
However, it does not 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” in the
present context. 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
extensive criminal history.
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 (Doc. No. 49) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2022.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:21-cr-00240-DMT Document 50 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 2