1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DELDRICK DAMOND LEWIS (9)

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Crim. No. 4:23-cr-52-ALM-KPJ-9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Deldrick Damond Lewis’s (“Defendant”) Motion 

to Reopen the Issue of Detention and Request for Hearing (the “Motion”) (Dkt. 195), wherein 

Defendant requests the Court reopen his detention hearing.1 Dkt. 195 at 1. The Government filed

a response in opposition (the “Response”) (Dkt. 206). For the reasons that follow, the Motion 

(Dkt. 195) is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2023, the grand jury returned the First Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 87) 

in which Defendant is charged in Count One with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Dkt. 87 at 1–2. On 

October 11, 2023, Defendant was arrested, and on October 16, 2023, Defendant was arraigned and 

made an initial appearance before the undersigned. See Minute Entry dated October 16, 2023. 

During the October 16, 2023 arraignment, the Government advised the Court that it was seeking 

to detain Defendant. See id.

1 Defendant filed two identical motions requesting to reopen his detention hearing. See Dkts. 194–95. However, the 

second-filed motion includes two exhibits that were not attached to the first-filed motion. See id.; see also Dkts. 195-

1. Accordingly, the first-filed motion (Dkt. 194) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Case 4:23-cr-00052-ALM-KPJ Document 210 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 559
2

On October 19, 2023, the Court held the detention hearing (the “Hearing”), wherein the 

Government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Matt Johnson and Defendant 

was represented by Mr. Chris Coker. Dkt. 136. During the Hearing, the Government presented one 

witness, Investigator Robert Todd (“Investigator Todd”) with the Grayson County Sheriff’s Office, 

FBI Violent Crimes Task Force, who testified regarding the details of the alleged offense and 

subsequent investigation leading to Defendant’s indictment. Dkt. 137 at 3. Defendant did not 

present any witnesses on his behalf. See id. Defendant’s counsel represented that Defendant’s aunt 

could act as a third-party custodian for him, if he were to be released. Id. The Court found that 

Defendant did not introduce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of detention and, thus, 

“based on the evidence presented, there are no conditions or combination of conditions that 

[would] reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community or reasonably assure 

Defendant’s appearance as required.” Id. at 4. Therefore, the Court granted the Government’s 

motion for detention and ordered Defendant be detained pending trial. Id.

On April 22, 2024, Defendant filed the Motion (Dkt. 195), wherein he represents that 

“[t]here is important information that was not presented to the Magistrate Judge at the time of the 

initial hearing” and “[c]onditions exist that can be set to ensure [Defendant’s] appearance and the 

safety of the community.” Dkt. 195 at 3. On May 20, 2024, the Government filed the Response 

(Dkt. 206), wherein it argues that the Order of Detention (Dkt. 137) should stand because 

Defendant’s “information is neither new nor material.” Dkt. 206 at 1.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Under the Bail Reform Act, a detention hearing may be reopened at any time before trial 

“if the judicial officer finds that [1] information exists that was not known to the movant at the 

time of the hearing and [2] that has material bearing on the issue [of risk of flight or 

Case 4:23-cr-00052-ALM-KPJ Document 210 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 560
3

dangerousness].” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Fifth Circuit has “interpreted this standard as asking 

whether any ‘new’ information was presented.” United States v. Stanford, 367 F. App’x 507, 510 

(5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “Courts interpreting new and material information for purposes 

of § 3142(f) require truly changed circumstances, something unexpected, or a significant event, 

and courts have interpreted the requirements of this provision strictly such that a defendant cannot 

re-open detention to present evidence that he could have investigated before the detention 

hearing.” United States v. Hemani, 684 F. Supp. 3d 579, 584 (E.D. Tex. 2023) (quoting United 

States v. Jacob, No. 21-31, 2023 WL 2867324, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 10, 2023)) (cleaned up).

Here, Defendant seeks to re-open the issue of pretrial detention to present the following 

information: (1) Defendant’s infant daughter, Ka’loni, and her mother, Zakerra, have sickle-cell,

which leads to “frequent bouts of illness and emergency room and hospital stays,” and when 

Zakerra is admitted to the hospital, Defendant is the only caretaker available to care for Ka’loni; 

and (2) testimony from a third-party custodian. See Dkt. 195 at 3. However, neither of these 

asserted reasons constitute new information. First, Defendant knew of Ka’loni’s and Zakerra’s 

diagnoses of sickle cell at the time of the Hearing; therefore, this cannot be categorized as new 

information that was unavailable at the time of the Hearing. See Dkt. 195-1 at 21–22 (identifying 

the date of diagnosis for Ka’loni as May 17, 2023, and for Zakerra as May 18, 2022). Second, the 

introduction of testimony from family, friends, or acquaintances who could act as a third-party 

custodian does not constitute new information that was not known to Defendant at the time of the 

Hearing. See United States v. Miller, No. 20-cr-71, 2021 WL 490248, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 

2021) (denying the defendant’s request to reopen detention because testimony from “friends, 

family members, and acquaintances who may serve as a third-party custodian” is not “new 

information previously unknown at the time of . . . [the] first detention hearing”). Thus, Defendant 

Case 4:23-cr-00052-ALM-KPJ Document 210 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 561
4

could have presented both the evidence regarding Ka’loni’s and Zakerra’s condition and the 

testimony of a third-party custodian at the Hearing but failed to do so. In the first instance, 

Defendant did not provide the Court with information then known to him. In the second instance, 

Defendant represented to the Court that his aunt was willing to serve as a third party custodian but 

chose not to have her testify. Accordingly, neither constitutes new evidence that would warrant 

reopening the issue of Defendant’s pretrial detention. The absence of new evidence alone is 

sufficient to deny the Motion (Dkt. 195). See Hemani, 684 F. Supp. 3d at 584 (“Courts may deny 

a motion to reopen detention because the evidence proffered is not new or because it would not 

have material bearing on the detention decision.” (first citing United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 

799 (5th Cir. 1989); and then citing United States v. Stanford, 341 F. App’x 979, 984 (5th Cir. 

2009))).

Even if the evidence Defendant now seeks to introduce did constitute new evidence, it is 

not material to the Court’s decision to detain Defendant pending trial. To be material, new evidence 

“must relate in some significant or essential way to the decision whether to detain.” Id. (quoting 

United States v. Worrell, No. 21-cr-292, 2021 WL 2366934, at *9 (D.D.C. June 9, 2021)). The 

Order of Detention (Dkt. 137) identified the following as the reasons for its decision to detain 

Defendant pending trial:

• Weight of the evidence against the defendant is strong

• Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted

• Prior criminal history

• History of violence or use of weapons

• History of alcohol or substance abuse

• Lack of significant community or family ties to this district

Case 4:23-cr-00052-ALM-KPJ Document 210 Filed 06/17/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 562
5

• Prior violations of probation, parole, or supervised release

Dkt. 137 at 4–5. In particular, the Court identified that “Defendant has an extensive criminal 

history beginning when he was fourteen years old” which includes charges for “theft of property, 

aggravated robbery, burglary of habitation, assault causes bodily injury family member, and 

possession of marijuana.” Id. at 4. 

The evidence Defendant seeks to introduce would not significantly affect the Court’s 

decision to detain him pending trial. First, the information regarding Ka’loni’s and Zakerra’s 

diseases is not information that contributes to a factor under Section 3142(g), and thus, would not 

impact the Court’s decision. Second, the Court was made aware that Defendant had a potential 

third-party custodian, his aunt, and the Court nevertheless found that detention was warranted 

based on the findings identified above. Accordingly, the evidence is not material. Thus, in the 

absence of new, material evidence, the Motion (Dkt. 195) must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 195) is DENIED. Defendant shall remain 

detained pending trial.

Case 4:23-cr-00052-ALM-KPJ Document 210 Filed 06/17/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 563