1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

M. BRIDGET MINDER 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Arizona State Bar No. 023356 

Email: mary.minder@usdoj.gov Two Renaissance Square 

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Telephone: 602-514-7500 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

1. Dewayne Frederick Johnson, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. CR-18-0346-PHX-DJH 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR 

DETENTION PENDING TRIAL 

The United States moves this Court to detain defendant Dewayne Johnson pending 

trial because he is a serious flight risk. Defendant has a history of failing to appear for 

court proceedings and his purported ties to the community are not verified. Defendant is 

facing a steep sentence (17 years or more) and there is strong evidence against him, giving 

him a motive to flee. No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his 

appearance. 

Background 

Defendants Dewayne Johnson and Antoinette Arangua were charged by Indictment 

on March 13, 2018, with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1029(b)(2) (conspiracy), 

§ 1029(a)(3)-(4) (access device fraud), and § 1028A (aggravated identity theft) based on 

their alleged possession and use of stolen credit card numbers. The Indictment alleges 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

defendants used hundreds of stolen credit card numbers and possessed more than a 

thousand stolen credit card numbers as well as a credit card encoder, credit card embossers, 

and other materials and equipment they used to create fraudulent credit cards. 

Defendant Arangua was arrested on March 15, 2018 (doc. 12) and detained pending 

trial as a flight risk based on her criminal history and prior failure to appear in court as 

ordered (doc. 15).1

 

Defendant Johnson was arrested on March 16, 2018. MCSO officers helping federal 

agents with the arrest took defendant into custody first on an outstanding warrant for local 

charges. Defendant was released to federal custody on May 2, 2018. See Minute Entry for 

Initial Appearance (doc. 21). 

Argument 

Defendant should be detained because he poses a serious risk for non-appearance at 

trial and no conditions can reasonably assure his appearance. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) & 

§ 3142(f)(2)(A); United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991) (flight risk 

finding need only be supported by preponderance of the evidence). As detailed below, 

consideration of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) leads to the conclusion that 

defendant Johnson is a serious flight risk. 

A. Defendant has motive to flee from the offenses charges (§ 3142(g)(1)). 

Defendant is charged with seven counts stemming from his participation in a stolen 

credit card scheme, including three counts related to Access Device Fraud in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1029 and four counts of Aggravated Identity Theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A. This Court is permitted to consider possible punishment as an incentive for a 

 1

 Before deciding not to contest detention, defendant Arangua asked to be released 

to the custody of defendant Johnson’s father, Marvin Johnson. Pretrial Services 

determined Marvin Johnson was not a suitable third-party custodian, however, given his extensive criminal history and outstanding warrant for failure to appear. See Addendum 

to Arangua Pretrial Services Report dated March 19, 2018. That is significant here because, as discussed below, defendant Johnson reports that he shares a home with his 

father in Youngtown, Arizona. See Johnson Pretrial Services Report dated May 2, 2018 (doc. 23). 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

defendant to flee in assessing a defendant’s risk of flight. See United States v. Townsend, 

897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) (defendants deemed to have a greater incentive to 

consider flight when faced with the possibility of lengthy prison sentences). Defendant 

faces a possible sentence of 17 years or more if convicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4) 

(Count 3) (statutory maximum sentence of 15 years); 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (mandatory twoyear consecutive sentence).2

 

B. The evidence is strong against defendant (§ 3142(g)(2)).3

There is strong evidence that defendant operated a stolen credit card scheme for 

many months. The evidence against defendant includes physical surveillance by federal 

agents who saw defendant use stolen credit card numbers; video surveillance of defendant 

using stolen credit card numbers; reports from vendors and financial institutions regarding 

the stolen credit card numbers used by defendant; and tracking information from 

defendant’s cars, placing him at locations where stolen credit card numbers were used. 

In addition, in late October 2017, federal agents searched defendant’s home and 

cars, and a Tucson hotel room in which defendant was staying at the time. Agents found 

(among other things) electronic devices containing nearly 2,000 credit card numbers, more 

than 100 credit cards, two credit card embossers and 17 pieces of white plastic, and a credit 

card encoder. 

C. Defendant’s has a history of failing to appear for court (§ 3142(g)(3)). 

As detailed in the Pretrial Services Report (doc. 23), defendant has a record of nonappearance at court proceedings. The government has been able to obtain some records 

related to defendant’s failure to appear and is working to obtain additional records. The 

records received so far show that defendant evaded court proceedings for charges related 

 2

 The maximum potential sentence is 23 years as the Court could order the 

mandatory two-year sentences for the four counts of Aggravated Identity Theft be served consecutively (for a total of eight years). 

3

 The weight of the evidence is generally considered the “least important” factor, United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir. 1985), however, it is important here to demonstrate defendant’s motive to flee to avoid prosecution. 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to marijuana possession and driving on a suspended license for more than six years, despite 

repeated reminders from law enforcement. 

Specifically, as set forth in the Pretrial Services Report (doc. 23), defendant was 

arrested on January 31, 2012 for felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor 

possession of drug paraphernalia. He did not appear to resolve those charges and a warrant 

was issued. Defendant also appears to have had warrants related to charges of driving on 

a suspended license. Defendant was subsequently arrested on several occasions and 

reminded of the outstanding warrants. For example, he was arrested on March 22, 2013 

by Phoenix Police (who was investigating prostitution allegations), because of four 

outstanding warrants. Defendant even told police he had warrants when they encountered 

him. See Phoenix Police Report for Incident 201300495532.4

 Eight days later, he was 

arrested by Tempe Police (who conducted a traffic stop of defendant and immediately 

smelled marijuana) because of the felony warrant for possession of marijuana arising from 

defendant’s January 31, 2012 arrest. See Tempe Police Report #2013-29724. 

Defendant did not resolve the warrant, however, and it was still outstanding on 

October 26, 2017, when federal agents were executing search warrants in this investigation. 

Tucson police, who were assisting Secret Service with the searches, arrested defendant on 

the outstanding warrant. See Tucson Police Report for Case No. 1710260430. Even then, 

defendant did not resolve it and it was still outstanding when he was arrested on March 16, 

2018 for the instant offenses. (He spent nearly seven weeks in state custody on the 

marijuana charges. He pleaded guilty on April 30, 2018, and was sentenced to probation.) 

If defendant failed to appear for more than six years to resolve relatively minor 

violations like possession of marijuana or driving on a suspended license, there is no 

assurance that defendant will appear in this case given the much steeper penalties he is 

facing. 

 4

 The government will provide these police reports to defense counsel and the 

Court. 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

D. Defendant’s other history shows he is a flight risk (§ 3142(g)(3)). 

In addition to his history of non-appearance at court proceedings, defendant’s other 

history and characteristics suggest he is a flight risk and his ties to the community are not 

verified by credible information. 

First, defendant’s employment history is questionable. Defendant self-reports a 

long history of employment as a professional mover, but surveillance and tracking 

information gathered in this case directly contradict his claim. During the months federal 

agents were watching defendant, he spent only a limited amount of time at Low Budget 

Moving, primarily during the time period immediately before he rented a new apartment 

with defendant Arangua. Otherwise, defendant’s movements were consistent with the 

credit card scheme detailed in the indictment (e.g., multiple visits a day to gas stations and 

convenience stores in Phoenix and Tucson)—not with someone engaged in legitimate, fulltime work as a mover.5

 

Second, it is not clear where—or with whom—defendant lives. Defendant says he 

lives with his fiancé, Rachael Brogan, their two children, Ms. Brogan’s child from a prior 

relationship, and defendant’s father, at a rented home on Elk Avenue in Youngtown. See

Johnson Pretrial Services Report dated May 2, 2018 (doc. 23). Defendant Arangua, 

however, reported to Pretrial Services that until her arrest on these charges, she lived with 

defendant Johnson (who she described as her boyfriend) and their child in an apartment on 

North 27th Avenue in Phoenix. See Arangua Pretrial Services Report dated March 15, 

2018. And when Pretrial Services contacted defendant’s father about being a third-party 

custodian for defendant Arangua, he purported to live in California—not Youngtown. See

Addendum to Arangua Pretrial Services Report dated March 19, 2018 (report Mr. Johnson 

said he would move from California to Arizona to be Arangua’s third-party custodian). 

Third, defendant has a long history of drug use. He reports using marijuana since 

 5

 Police reports obtained by the government, in addition to other evidence gathered in this case, also suggest defendant was involved in prostitution like his co-defendant. 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

age 21 (16 years), has several marijuana-related arrests, and admits to daily use of 

marijuana. See Johnson Pretrial Services Report dated May 2, 2018 (doc. 23). Defendant 

still tested positive for marijuana on May 2, 2018, even after being in state custody for 

nearly seven weeks. Id. 

Conclusion 

For all of the reasons set forth above, the government believes defendant is a serious 

flight risk and there is no condition or combination of conditions to reasonably assure his 

appearance. Defendant should be detained. 

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of May, 2018. 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

s/M. Bridget Minder M. BRIDGET MINDER 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the 

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Kaitlin Verdura. 

s/Gaynell Smith 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00346-DJH Document 30 Filed 05/09/18 Page 6 of 6