DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 1 of 11

SAMUEL C. KAUFFMAN, OSB #943527

KAUFFMAN KILBERG LLC

Suite 1414

1001 SW Fifth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 224-2595

Fax: (503) 224-3203

E-Mail: sam@kauffmankilberg.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Dylan Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DYLAN ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-11

DEFENDANT DYLAN 

ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR 

REVIEW OF DETENTION 

ORDER 

Defendant Dylan Anderson, through counsel, hereby moves pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3145(b) for review and revoke the detention order issued by Magistrate 

Judge Beckerman on January 29, 2016. (CR-14). Mr. Anderson further moves for 

review of his detention based upon additional information regarding his history and 

characteristics and the government’s case against him that was not available at the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 2 of 11

time of the initial detention hearing. This motion is made on the grounds that the 

government did not and cannot meet its burden of proving that Mr. Anderson is 

either a risk of flight or danger to the community such that “no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as 

required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. §

3142(f). 

To the contrary, Mr. Anderson’s history and characteristics, including his 

extensive family support, lack of criminal history, his employment history and his 

reported character and work ethic, show that he is an ideal candidate for release. 

Further, Judge Beckerman was wrong in concluding that Mr. Anderson was a “key 

player” in the alleged conspiracy and in her suggestion that he was at the refuge for 

the entirety of the alleged occupation. Indeed, Mr. Anderson was at the refuge for 

only about 10-days between January 2 and January 27, 2016, the date of his arrest. 

Mr. Anderson was not a “key player” in the alleged conspiracy. 

The government opposes Mr. Anderson’s request for release. United States 

Pretrial Services recommended that the Court release Mr. Anderson at the previous 

detention hearing. 

Procedural Background:

On January 26, 2016, Dylan Anderson was arrested in Burns, Oregon. He 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 3 of 11

and seven others were charged in a federal complaint with conspiring to impede, 

by force, intimidation, or threat, officers from discharging their duties in the 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372. (CR-14). On 

January 27, 2016, Mr. Anderson made his first appearance in federal court on the 

complaint. (CR-15.) At that initial hearing, the Court set a preliminary hearing for 

February 3, 2016, and scheduled arraignment on any subsequent indictment for 

February 24, 2016. (CR-16).

As to release, United States Pretrial Services conducted a brief interview of 

Mr. Anderson, interviewed his mother over the telephone and prepared a report, 

which recommended that the Court release Mr. Anderson with various conditions. 

The Court, at the government’s request, continued the detention hearing for Mr. 

Anderson and the other defendants for a period of two-days to January 29, 2016.

The Detention Hearing:

On January 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacey Beckerman considered the 

report and recommendation from United States Pretrial Release and heard the 

arguments of the parties. The government filed a Memorandum in Support of 

Detention (CR-8) regarding all of the defendants charged at the time and 

referenced the allegations made in the complaint (CR-14). The government’s 

argument regarding Mr. Anderson consisted of three short paragraphs at the very 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 4 of 11

end of the document. Magistrate Judge Beckerman held a detention hearing on 

January 29, 2016. Judge Beckerman ordered that Mr. Anderson be detained:

I'm looking at the factors that the Court must consider, 

including the three that we talked about a lot today, which is the 

nature and circumstance of the offense, the weight of the evidence, 

and the nature and seriousness of danger if the defendant is released, 

and those three factors are what are driving my decisions here today. 

For those key players in the armed occupation, and I count Mr. 

Anderson as one of those because he was there at the beginning and 

he was there at the end, as to these key players who created this 

incredibly dangerous situation and refused to leave, despite law 

enforcement's orders to do so, for an entire month, those three factors 

for me outweigh the history and characteristics of the accused here 

which speak to Mr. Anderson's unemployment, lack of income, and 

the fact that he came to Oregon over the protest of his family, with 

that balance in mind, I do find that the defendant presents a risk of 

danger to the community and a risk of nonappearance if I were to 

release him here today.

So I will enter an order of detention for Mr. Anderson.

Tr. 9. 

On February 3, 2016, the government issued an indictment (CR-58) 

charging Mr. Anderson and the other defendants with the same Conspiracy 

contained in the Complaint. On March 8, 2016, the government issued a 

Superseding Indictment, which included additional defendants and additional 

charges as to some of the defendants. As to Mr. Anderson, the government added a 

charge of Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities, 18 

U.S.C. § 930(b), a Class D Felony, punishable by no more than five years

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 5 of 11

imprisonment.

APPLICABLE LAW:

A. Basic Framework:

The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), creates a presumption for release 

on one’s own personal recognizance unless the judicial officer finds that release 

will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, or will 

endanger the safety of the community or any person. If the Court determines that 

recognizance release will not reasonably ensure both the defendant’s appearance 

and the safety of the community, 18 U.S.C § 3142(c) directs the Court to release 

the person on “the least restrictive” condition or set of conditions. Detention is 

appropriate only if “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably 

assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person 

and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

B. The Government’s Burdens:

In seeking detention, the government bears the burden of proof as to both 

risk of flight and danger to the community. The standards of proof differ for each 

prong; the government must establish flight risk by a preponderance of the 

evidence and danger by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Gebro, 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 6 of 11

948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 

1406 (9th Cir. 1985). The federal rules concerning admissibility of evidence in 

criminal trials are inapplicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court may base its 

findings on proffer and hearsay. United States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755, 756 (9th 

Cir.1986).

C. Factors Weighing on the Release Decision:

Factors to be considered by the Court in assessing release or detention 

include: the nature and circumstances of the alleged offense; the weight of the 

evidence; the history and characteristics of the person; and the risk of danger to 

any person or the community in general. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

D. Standard of Review:

Review of the facts underlying a magistrate judge’s release order is de novo. 

United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Lopp, 2015 WL 5139367 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 1, 2015).

APPLICATION:

A. History and Characteristics of Dylan Anderson:

Dylan Anderson is 35 years old and was born and raised in the Provo, Utah

area. Prior to his arrest, he lived with his wife of three years Cynthia Anderson, in 

the basement apartment of the home owned by his mother, Jean Clay, to whom 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 6 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 7 of 11

they pay rent on a monthly basis. Mr. Anderson seeks to return to Provo and 

continue living his with his wife. 

1. Mr. Anderson has extensive family support both in Utah and in Oregon: 

Mr. Anderson’s father and stepmother live in American Fork, Utah, a short 

distance from Mr. Anderson’s residence in Provo. Mr. Anderson’s two younger 

sisters, Justine Anderson and Cara Dahlquist also live in close proximity to Mr. 

Anderson. All of Mr. Anderson’s immediate family are supportive of him and 

pledge to assist him in any way that they can, including assisting him in getting to 

Court appearances, if necessary.

1

Mr. Anderson’s older sister lives with her family in Beaverton, Oregon. 

She has also offered her support to Mr. Anderson and has even offered to allow 

him to reside at her home if need be prior to and especially during trial. 

2. Mr. Anderson has always worked and will be employed upon his 

release:

Mr. Anderson graduated from high school in 1998. As his family attests, 

Mr. Anderson is known for his strong work ethic and has nearly always been 

employed since graduating from high school. Mr. Anderson’s most recent longterm employment was at a recycling company operating heavy equipment, where 

 1 Mr. Anderson has filed under seal reports of interviews with Anderson’s family containing 

private and confidential information. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 7 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 8 of 11

he worked from 2012 to about 2015. He left that job only after he developed 

tinnitus. Most recently, Mr. Anderson worked as delivery driver for a flower 

company. Although Mr. Anderson lost that job over the course of the MNWR 

protest, he should have no trouble finding employment after his release. 

3. Mr. Anderson’s criminal history is minor and it is old:

The government argued to Judge Beckerman that Mr. Anderson is a flight 

risk because his history includes “drug and alcohol offenses and a failure to 

appear.”

Records reflect that Mr. Anderson was arrested on November 23, 1999 (age 

18), by the Utah County Sheriff for possession of marijuana and marijuana 

paraphernalia. Records further reflect that Mr. Anderson was convicted in the 

Springville Justice Court of Possession of Alcohol by a Minor and fined $248.65. 

Mr. Anderson has had no reported police contact since that time. Mr. Anderson’s 

minor transgressions at age 18 are hardly indicative of a danger to the community 

or risk of flight at age 35 as the government has suggested. 

B. The Nature and Circumstances of the Alleged Offense and the Weight 

of the Evidence:

1. Mr. Anderson was not a “key player” in the alleged conspiracy:

Judge Beckerman indicated that she counted Mr. Anderson as a “key player” 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 8 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 9 of 11

in the “armed occupation,” because “he was there at the beginning and he was 

there at the end.” Tr. 9. Judge Beckerman’s suggestion that Mr. Anderson was at 

the MNWR the entire time period of the alleged occupation and that it somehow 

reflects on his role in the alleged conspiracy is wrong for two reasons. 

First, Mr. Anderson was in fact not present at the refuge during the entire 

alleged occupation. Although he may have been photographed outside of the 

refuge near the entrance on January 2, 2016 following the protest in Burns and was 

reportedly seen again outside the refuge by a reporter the following day, he left 

Oregon to return to Provo on the evening of January 7, 2016. See, Ex. 1 at 2 and 

attachments. Mr. Anderson remained in Provo for the next 13-days and then 

returned to the MNWF on about January 21, 2016. Id. Mr. Anderson voluntarily 

departed on January 28, 2016 and was arrested at the FBI checkpoint unarmed and 

without incident. Accordingly, Mr. Anderson was only at the refuge a total of 

about ten-days. Accordingly, he could not have been a “key player.” Moreover, 

the government has presented no evidence that Mr. Anderson had any type of 

leadership role in the occupation or, that he had any role beyond being present at 

the beginning for that matter. 

Second, if Mr. Anderson were a “key player,” he would likely be referenced 

in the discovery as such. However, in the nearly 5,000 pages of reports that the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 9 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 10 of 11

government has produced thus far, there is no mention of Mr. Anderson at all with 

respect to the alleged occupation of the refuge. Although there is a reference to his 

arrest and to a firearm that was found on the refuge that was reportedly registered 

as purchased by him, apparently the government has yet to produce any evidence 

of any conduct or actions by Mr. Anderson on the refuge. 

As the government indicated in its detention memorandum, Mr. Anderson 

does appear in a video taken outside the refuge where he is seen standing with his 

firearm along with Ammon Bundy and others prior to their entry. However, Mr. 

Anderson made no statements and was not mentioned by name, as others were. 

The only other reference to Mr. Anderson at or near the refuge is not from 

law enforcement, but from Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). OPB reporter 

Amanda Peacher interviewed Mr. Anderson on January 3, 2016 while he was

standing in the cold outside an entrance to the refuge. Mr. Anderson was 

apparently unarmed, although Ms. Peacher describes him as “guarding” the 

entrance. Counsel could find no other references to Mr. Anderson in any media 

taken during the course of the protest. 

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 10 of 11
DEFENDANT DYLAN ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF 

DETENTION ORDER 

Page 11 of 11

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should revoke the detention order 

issued by Judge Beckerman and order that Mr. Anderson be released.

DATED this 7th day of April 2016.

KAUFFMAN KILBERG LLC

By /s/ Samuel C. Kauffman

Samuel C. Kauffman, OSB #943527

Telephone: (503) 224-2595

Fax: (503) 224-3203

E-Mail: sam@kauffmankilberg.com

Attorneys for Dylan Anderson

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 373 Filed 04/07/16 Page 11 of 11