UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

United States of America, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) File No. 3:21-mj-521
) 3:22-cr-005
Nicholas Derosier, )
)
Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT OF DIGITAL RECORDING OF

DETENTION HEARING

Taken at
United States Courthouse
Fargo, North Dakota
January 4 and 6, 2022

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALICE R. SENECHAL

-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE --
 APPEARANCES

MS. JENNIFER K. PUHL

U.S. Attorney's Office
655 First Avenue North, Suite 250
Fargo, North Dakota 58102

FOR THE UNITED STATES

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. CHRISTOPHER P. BELLMORE

Federal Public Defender's Office
Federal Square
112 Roberts Street North, Suite 200
Fargo, North Dakota 58102

FOR THE DEFENDANT

- - - - - - - - - -

Certificate of Transcriptionist - Page 44

- - - - - - - - - -

2
1 (The above-entitled matter came before the Court, The

2 Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States District Court

3 Magistrate Judge, presiding, commencing at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday,

4 January 4, 2022, in the United States Courthouse, Fargo, North

5 Dakota. The following proceedings were had and made of record

6 by digital recording in open court with the defendant present.)

7 - - - - - - - - - - -

8 THE COURT: Today is January 4, 2022. It is just

9 past 3:00 p.m. We're here in Case Number 3:21-mj-521, United

10 States of America versus Nicholas Morgan-Derosier. Jennifer

11 Puhl is here representing the United States. Mr. Derosier is

12 present and represented by Chris Bellmore from the Federal

13 Public Defender's Office, and Rachel Wallock from the pretrial

14 services office is also present.

15 This is a hearing on a motion for detention pending

16 trial. Mr. Derosier had requested an indefinite continuance of

17 the hearing at the time of his initial appearance and has now

18 requested that hearing, so that's why we're in the courtroom

19 this afternoon.

20 I have the pretrial services report. Ms. Wallock, do

21 you have anything to add to that written report?

22 MS. WALLOCK: No, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Counsel, have you both received the

24 report and had enough time to consider it?

25 MS. PUHL: May I remove my mask, Your Honor?

3
1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 MS. PUHL: Yes, I have reviewed this report, and I've

3 had time to consider it. Thank you.

4 THE COURT: Mr. Bellmore?

5 MR. BELLMORE: Yes, I have.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Puhl, you may proceed.

7 MS. PUHL: Thank you. May I remain seated, Your

8 Honor?

9 THE COURT: Yes, and please pull the microphone

10 closer so --

11 MS. PUHL: Certainly.

12 THE COURT: -- it picks it up.

13 MS. PUHL: Your Honor, the United States is

14 requesting detention in this matter. The defendant,

15 Mr. Derosier, is a prolific collector and distributor of child

16 pornography and a longtime hands-on offender of young boys.

17 Because this case involves minor victims, there is a

18 presumption of detention; that is, there is a presumption that

19 there are no conditions that will reasonably assure the

20 defendant's appearance as required or assure the safety of the

21 community in this case, so this is a over -- a presumption that

22 the defendant must overcome, and I would submit he simply

23 cannot do so in this case based upon the history and

24 circumstances of this defendant, the weight of the evidence and

25 his criminal history.

4
1 First, I want to address the defendant's living

2 situation. He submits in the pretrial services report that he

3 owns a condo with his partner, , who is now, I'm

4 told, just turned 21 years of age. That condo is not owned by

5 the defendant. In fact, the -- it would appear that the condo

6 is, in fact, owned by an individual named Michael Biel.

7 Michael Biel is a 66-year-old man who owns a NAPA

8 Auto Parts store in Carrington, North Dakota, among other NAPA

9 Auto Parts stores throughout the Midwest, including one in

10 Thief River Falls.

11 Mr. Biel met the defendant ten years ago online,

12 after which he hired the defendant to work for him at the Thief

13 River Falls NAPA Auto Parts store. Thereafter the defendant

14 was charged and convicted of stealing from that NAPA Auto Parts

15 store, and that's reflected on page 4 of the pretrial services

16 report, so the -- that NAPA store -- NAPA Auto Parts store in

17 particular, Mr. Biel is the victim of that offense.

18 This is the condo that the defendant is residing in.

19 It is owned by Mr. Biel, so when I saw this, I asked the agents

20 to reach out to Mr. Biel today to find out about ownership of

21 this condo. And Mr. Biel tells law enforcement that it --

22 there was a contract for deed and that Mr. Derosier has made

23 one payment, and that payment was in September of this year.

24 He has made no other payments, and he is taking legal action to

25 get that condo returned to him, Your Honor.

5
1 I also learned today that the condo association has

2 put a $15,000 lien on this condo because Mr. Derosier has not

3 paid condo dues, has not paid special assessment, and did not

4 undergo a background check, which apparently is required by the

5 condo association, so that calls into question whether, in

6 fact, this condo is available for him to return to.

7 Also important about Mr. Biel is that Mr. Biel bonded

8 the defendant out of state custody after he was charged in

9 Grand Forks County with the child pornography offenses.

10 Because this was obviously very strange to us - he's a victim

11 of the offense in 2012, 2015, and then later bonds him out -

12 law enforcement interviewed him. Quite perplexing. Doesn't

13 say much at that point. Says that he has a soft place in his

14 heart for Mr. Derosier.

15 As we later learned, as I just -- as set forth in the

16 presentence investigation report (sic), the investigation

17 revealed that he -- Mr. Derosier then moves into this condo

18 that's owned by Mr. Biel. And law enforcement executed a

19 search warrant at that condo on October 31, 2021, and this was

20 one of many search warrants that have been executed in this

21 case.

22 They interview Mr. Biel for a second time, and he

23 admits to being in a relationship with the defendant at that

24 point or having a relationship. And he also shares text

25 conversations between Mister -- Mr. Derosier and himself,

6
1 during which time Mr. Derosier is sending him naked pictures of

2 his current partner, who I believe at the time was either 19 or

3 20 years of age.

4 In addition, the defendant had text message

5 conversations with a 77-year-old man from Grand Forks on

6 August 23, 2021, after his bond was revoked in state court. So

7 his bond is revoked in state court, and he's detained for a

8 short period of time, and he has text messages with this

9 77-year-old man from Grand Forks.

10 And during those text conversations the man is asking

11 or telling the defendant, Mr. Derosier, that he wants him to

12 bring over to his house to give him a massage. So this

13 defendant, Your Honor, continues, I believe, I would submit, to

14 exploit individuals, in particular this young man, .

15 Now, he does not consider himself a victim, no

16 question, but I think what we're seeing, of course, is

17 exploitation. At the time of the defendant's arrest, law

18 enforcement asked whether he was aware that the

19 defendant was serving him up to a seven -- or a 77-year-old

20 man, and said no, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: ?

22 MS. PUHL: . I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.

23 So I mention all of that again for two reasons,

24 because I'm -- it calls into question this place that the

25 defendant has identified that he can return to. I would submit

7
1 at best it's questionable. And, of course, his relationship

2 with is, of course, I think of concern here.

3 In addition, Your Honor -- and I'm going to be

4 relying on the affidavit that supports the Complaint. The

5 United States -- well, before I get to that, let me also talk

6 about the defendant's criminal history that's reflected on page

7 3. The defendant has a 2006 charge for criminal sexual conduct

8 in the second degree out of Anoka County. The victim of that

9 offense is a .

10 The -- there's another ,

11 , who is claiming or who has alleged that the defendant

12 sexually abused her when she was in elementary school and

13 middle school. And she tells us that this victim of this

14 offense recanted because there was pressure put on them by the

15 , and there was -- or not pressure, perhaps, but there

16 was a promise made to these young girls that the defendant

17 would buy them a car, and, in fact, the victim recanted.

18 But today the victim, who's in court, and she told me

19 that I can -- can refer to her as the defendant's , is

20 claiming that she was sexually abused by this defendant when

21 she was in elementary school and middle school.

22 Now, relative to the facts of this case, the weight

23 of the evidence is very strong. There's child -- thousands of

24 images and videos of child pornography depicting mostly boys

25 that were recovered from numerous devices from the defendant's

8
1 residence in Grand Forks, including on his person and in a safe

2 that was located in his bedroom.

3 Now, relative to the phone, there's an HTC cell phone

4 that was recovered from the safe that was found in his bedroom

5 in his Grand Forks residence. Special Agent Smith has

6 conducted a forensic examination of that phone, and there's

7 child pornography. And I'm not going to talk about that child

8 pornography because it's detailed, I think, in the affidavit

9 that supports the Complaint, the numbers and then some of the

10 images.

11 But in addition to the child pornography, on an HTC

12 cell phone, law enforcement recovered -- or excuse me. Special

13 Agent Smith identified 20 to 21 victims, individuals that

14 he's -- that are suspected victims of this defendant,

15 individuals that this defendant has engaged in sexual activity

16 with when these victims were underage, and this goes back to

17 2011.

18 As I sit here right now, I can't recall if four -- I

19 think five of those victims have since been interviewed. It's

20 taking time because, of course, they don't have the same phone

21 numbers, it's -- they've since moved, they're now adults, but

22 five of those victims have been recently interviewed in the

23 last six to nine months by HSI agents.

24 Those victims -- with the exception of one, those

25 victims have -- have revealed that they sent -- either sent

9
1 sexually graphic images to the defendant, or at least three of

2 them told law enforcement that the defendant engaged in sexual

3 activity with them when they were underage. And again, we have

4 a lot of work to be done here, but as I said, Special Agent

5 Smith has identified 20 to 21 victims just from this phone

6 alone, Your Honor.

7 There are also conversations that were recovered from

8 this HT (sic) cell phone between the defendant and James

9 McHaney. As is detailed in some of the search warrant

10 affidavits, James McHaney is an individual that was convicted

11 of child pornography offenses out of the District of Columbia.

12 After he was released from BOP custody, he moves to

13 Minnesota, moves to the metro area, and his supervision is

14 transferred, and again, this is detailed in search warrant

15 affidavits. That supervision is revoked recently. It's

16 revoked -- was revoked twice, most recently in June. I think

17 it was June of this summer. And he cooperates as a part of

18 that. And he sits down with the Minnesota Internet Crimes

19 Against Children Task Force, and he tells them a whole lot of

20 information about a whole lot of people.

21 Now, again, this is independent of our investigation,

22 what's happening in North Dakota, but it gets forwarded to the

23 North Dakota ICAC Task Force because there's information in

24 that report which implicates Mr. Derosier. And it's consistent

25 with what one of the victims who has been interviewed told law

10
1 enforcement, that he had sex with the defendant when he was a

2 minor and he had sex with Mr. McHaney. Mr. McHaney introduced

3 the defendant to this minor.

4 Mr. McHaney -- Mr. McHaney is interviewed recently by

5 HSI, and what does he say? He says that they met roughly ten

6 years ago, and he says that he engaged in sexual activity with

7 underage males with Mr. Derosier on several occasions.

8 And he says that Mr. Derosier told him at a

9 restaurant in Minneapolis -- he's very specific about which

10 restaurant, Sabo's (ph) in downtown Minneapolis. He told him

11 that he was having sex with , and

12 that he was recording it, so that came from Mr. McHaney.

13 And again, this is Mr. McHaney. The first report was

14 independent of our investigation, and law enforcement goes down

15 and interviews him, and it's consistent with what the forensics

16 are showing, that he's having conversations with young -- about

17 young males with Mr. McHaney.

18 And, of course, the one victim who has been

19 interviewed -- one of the five victims who has been interviewed

20 said, "Yes, I had sex with Mr. Derosier when I was underage,

21 and Mr. McHaney, that they sexually assaulted me." And again,

22 that's from one phone.

23 Multiple other devices that were recovered from --

24 from this defendant. Most recently law enforcement gained

25 access to the cell phone that was recovered from the

11
1 defendant's person. The search warrant was executed in

2 September of 2020. The search warrant (sic) that was recovered

3 from his person was not -- law enforcement was not able to gain

4 access to it, and they sent it off to Cellebrite. Cellebrite,

5 after over a year, gained access to it, provided it to law

6 enforcement.

7 And Special Agent Smith has begun to go through that

8 lengthy process. It's about a -- I think about probably a

9 50-page report, just a summary report of that one device. And

10 some of the conversations that the defendant is having with

11 other like-minded individuals, individuals that are sexually

12 interested in prepubescent-aged boys, are detailed in the

13 affidavit that supports the Complaint, and he is claiming that

14 he is sexually assaulting .

15 We also know that he is sending pictures of

16 , sexually-suggestive pictures and seemingly innocent

17 pictures of . And in some cases he's getting child

18 pornography in exchange as a result of sending those pictures,

19 Your Honor. And, again, some of those conversations -- I think

20 two, perhaps three of those conversations, very short snippets

21 of them are detailed in the affidavit, but it is -- it is a

22 very small portion of what's at issue here, Your Honor.

23 There are all kinds of other conversations that the

24 defendant is having with like-minded individuals where he's

25 representing that the defendant -- or that he is engaged --

12
1 that he is sexually abusing these . Sometimes he

2 represents that he's the , but if

3 there's -- but to not be mistaken, he's sending pictures of the

4 , so we know it's the .

5 And in other cases he's representing that he is , and

6 he's very specific about what kinds of sexual activity that

7 he's engaging in with these kids.

8 Also of import here, Your Honor, is the fact that

9 we -- the law enforcement here in North Dakota received yet

10 another tip from law enforcement in Minnesota. That was

11 independent of the investigation happening here, and that too

12 is detailed in, I think, every search warrant affidavit that's

13 been presented to this Court in this case.

14 And at issue in that case was a man, Jonathan -- or,

15 excuse me, a man who reported to the Eagan Police Department

16 that he met an individual online who was later identified as

17 Justin Langen, who has since been charged with child

18 pornography offenses in state court in Minnesota. He said he

19 met this individual and that he -- that this individual sent

20 him child pornography. So he receives this child pornography

21 that's very disturbing. He walks into the Eagan Police

22 Department and hands it over.

23 And again, this is -- again, I'm going to say this

24 again, it's set forth in the search warrant affidavits. This

25 then led to a search warrant of Mr. Langen's residence, and

13
1 they seized media, including a telephone. The forensic

2 examination of that telephone revealed text conversations and

3 Grindr conversations between Mr. Derosier and Justin Langen.

4 Now, they weren't able to recover child pornography, but you

5 can infer that child pornography was traded based upon what is

6 being said in these conversations.

7 And he also provided him a picture of Mr. Derosier

8 and and they talk about having boy fun

9 together. He talks -- they're talking about sexual -- they're

10 talking about sexual interest in prepubescent-age boys, and he

11 sends an image of he and , who he represents

12 is years of age. It's the younger of the .

13 His . This is the younger of the two

14 . So again, that's independent of what's going on in

15 North Dakota. And again, that -- that image of the defendant

16 and the defendant's shows up on Mr. Langen's cell phone

17 in Minnesota, Your Honor.

18 And, of course, as I said, again, there's all that

19 other media which reveals all the other child pornography. In

20 total there -- I think there are five cyber tips in this case,

21 Your Honor, that were ultimately resolved back to the

22 defendant. Some of these cyber tips were, I think, as -- date

23 back many years, but Special Agent Smith has been -- has since

24 been able to attribute them to this defendant.

25 What's of interest in this case, Your Honor, I think

14
1 one of the first cyber tips that came to North Dakota I believe

2 was in January or February of 2019, and it was shortly after

3 the defendant's business partner was killed. And he said that

4 the cyber tip came back to Team Lawn, and he made a

5 representation to the Grand Forks Police Department or law

6 enforcement that his devices had been stolen. Devices had been

7 stolen, and, unfortunately, it was dropped at that point, so it

8 was never -- law enforcement never sought through.

9 Fast-forward many months, there's a search warrant at

10 the defendant's residence for the -- for his engaging in

11 fraudulent activities relative to his Team Lawn business, and

12 it was during that search warrant in September of 2020 that

13 they located child pornography, Your Honor. But what's of

14 interest is the devices weren't stolen. All of those devices

15 were there. He lied to law enforcement then. He continues to

16 lie to law enforcement and continues, I think, to misrepresent

17 to this Court what's going on with his living situation.

18 In the end, Your Honor, the defendant poses a very

19 real, a very serious and a very imminent threat to the safety

20 of the community, in particular children. And again, some of

21 this activity or the activity I believe -- the activity

22 relative to is all happening after he's been charged

23 in Grand Forks County, Your Honor.

24 And I'm asking this Court to rely on the affidavit

25 that supports the Complaint, the affidavit -- the search

15
1 warrant affidavits, as well as the information that I have

2 proffered about the many suspected victims that were recovered

3 from the HTC cell phone, some of which have been -- some of

4 those victims have been interviewed by law enforcement, so

5 again, a serial offender of children.

6 So given the weight of the evidence and, I would

7 submit, the somewhat weak ties to this community, I also would

8 submit that the defendant poses a risk of flight in this case.

9 As I said, he's got that history of dishonesty, whether it be

10 his theft conviction, his deceiving others relative to his Team

11 Lawn business, and then again, those representations made to

12 this Court. In light of this -- all of this, Your Honor, the

13 United States submits that the defendant simply cannot overcome

14 the presumption of detention here.

15 THE COURT: You made several references to affidavits

16 supporting search warrant applications.

17 MS. PUHL: Yep.

18 THE COURT: Have those been provided to Mr. Bellmore?

19 MS. PUHL: They have not, no. I can certainly

20 provide them. I have them all right here, but they will be

21 provided to him after he's indicted, along with the other

22 evidence.

23 THE COURT: Mr. Bellmore.

24 MR. BELLMORE: Yes, Your Honor. I don't know when

25 that -- I don't know when that's going to be, and that's the

16
1 problem here. The government unloads all of these allegations,

2 all of these accusations for information mostly that is not

3 charged in the Complaint, involving conduct that's taken place

4 out of district, which I am -- I do not have to review in

5 preparation of this hearing, was not given a heads-up about it,

6 that there's -- that adds specific information was going to be

7 provided at the hearing.

8 And I don't have any of that information through

9 discovery because the government has charged this through

10 Complaint, and they're not going to provide discovery until

11 he's indicted. And when's he going to be indicted? There's no

12 timeline on that. It's whenever the government wants to do it,

13 I suppose. And so what the government has essentially done

14 here is, seeing the end of the state case, filed a Complaint

15 and affidavit based on a partial version of their

16 investigation, to use it to have Mr. Derosier arrested.

17 I have gone through -- this case was -- the state

18 version of this case was charged out quite a while ago. It was

19 dismissed recently, on December 30th. I had taken a look at

20 the docket in that case, and it looked like the State of North

21 Dakota was playing tricks on Mr. Derosier's bond. He was

22 bonded out. He posted a $25,000 bond, and there was no

23 substantive issues with him while he was released.

24 For example, I noticed that the government had

25 indicated that if Mr. Derosier appeared for his videoconference

17
1 hearing which took place over the internet, that they were

2 going to move to revoke his bond because he would've had to

3 access the internet, knowing that the Court had scheduled the

4 hearing for a video teleconference. Fortunately, that didn't

5 happen.

6 But Mr. Derosier has been out. He has been bonded in

7 this -- in that case and had been doing what he needs to do.

8 He wasn't -- there wasn't any legitimate revocation. He was

9 arrested at his home on the warrant in this case. Officers

10 knew where to -- found him. He was where he was supposed to

11 be, which is the residence that we are asking for his release

12 to, the condo that the government mentioned, so he has a solid

13 release plan.

14 I guess going back to the presumption here, of

15 course, the Court knows the presumption is rebuttable. We bear

16 the burden of producing a release plan, and this is a

17 rock-solid release plan. Mr. Derosier has a place where he can

18 go. He has a roommate, his significant other, his partner,

19 , who pretrial services has contacted, has verified all

20 of the information.

21 The government indicates that Mr. Derosier was

22 playing a fast one with the status of this condo. He was not.

23 I was present for the bond interview. He said it was a

24 contract for deed. That is actually described in the financial

25 section of the Bond Report, so he wasn't trying to mislead. He

18
1 wasn't misleading pretrial services. That is a place that he

2 has.

3 Whether he's behind on payments is one thing, but

4 he's certainly not misrepresenting that he has a place. And

5 that place, Your Honor, is not too far away from the

6 courthouse. It's not too far away from where his pretrial

7 services officer would be, within walking distance, and

8 Mr. Derosier does not drive.

9 What I'm proposing, Your Honor, is his release on

10 conditions that he be supervised, that he be supervised with

11 the condition that he undergo location monitoring and that he

12 be confined to his home, home confinement conditions. Those

13 are conditions of release that I believe we have -- that we are

14 producing through the Bond Report and through my comments this

15 afternoon that overcome that burden.

16 Again, I don't have the burden of persuasion in this

17 case with respect to his release. That's the government. I

18 have a limited burden of producing conditions that would

19 overcome the presumption that there are no options available.

20 There are options available. He has a place to go. He has a

21 condominium. There are conditions on -- restrictions that can

22 be placed upon him by the Court that would alleviate concerns

23 of nonappearance and danger -- danger to the community.

24 The Bond Report indicates that there's criminal

25 history entries, relatively few convictions. The government

19
1 mentioned the Thief River Falls theft case that was ten days

2 jail that was stayed for one year.

3 There are failure to appear entries in those cases.

4 Starting with the ones that are upfront in bold on page 3, both

5 of those are out of Minnesota, one in Stevens County for a

6 driving case, one in Sterns County for a fraudulent check case,

7 a bad check case. Those cases were opened in 2020.

8 Mr. Derosier traveled to Minnesota to attend those proceedings,

9 go to the courthouse to address those. He was told that the

10 courthouse was shut down because of COVID and to pay attention,

11 there'd be a new date.

12 It's unclear to me whether or not he was mailed the

13 new date, whether it was mailed to the wrong address. Early on

14 Mr. Derosier had been checking to see what the status of that

15 was, and after several months kind of took his eye off of it.

16 And these dates were set and -- and missed.

17 At that point he was dealing with the North Dakota

18 cases, where he had a bond condition where he could not leave

19 the state of North Dakota, so he couldn't easily get to

20 Minnesota to take care of those and to deal with those, because

21 those appear to be active, Your Honor.

22 I would have -- request an additional condition of

23 release that he resolve those within a reasonable time, such as

24 45 days, and if he were to be released, that he resolve those

25 warrants within 45 days. Those are -- again, taking a look at

20
1 the nature of those charges, appear to be not -- not serious

2 and should be easily resolved if he's given the opportunity on

3 release.

4 Your Honor, going -- going to the Complaint, a lot of

5 the -- the charges that are actually -- were brought forth in

6 the Complaint, only one of them carries a mandatory minimum

7 case -- sentence - excuse me - of five years. The nature of

8 the offenses as charged are not overly serious.

9 The affidavit that provides some information around

10 them is -- is another thing, Your Honor. I would just point

11 that some of the information that's provided in there is

12 unclear. It's not with certainty that Mr. Derosier is the one

13 who is engaging in these communications.

14 And, two, the government's concern about -

15 I'm basing this on the affidavit because this is, frankly, the

16 only substantive information on the government's evidence I

17 have at this point - indicates that neither -- neither of those

18 boys disclosed any sexual abuse when they were forensically

19 interviewed, interviewed by a professional trained to interview

20 children, and that there was no information disclosed.

21 So, Your Honor, I even -- even with the allegations

22 of contraband being found on electronic devices, I still

23 believe that there are conditions. Again, it was a condition

24 on the state bond that he was able to abide by, was that he not

25 have a smartphone, that it have easy access to the internet.

21
1 It wouldn't be necessary.

2 The Bond Report indicates that , as most

3 people -- almost every -- every person in free society has a

4 laptop, a phone or some access to the internet that -- for

5 daily life, but that would be separate from Mr. Derosier. He

6 would not have access to that.

7 And again, has agreed to serve as a

8 third-party custodian. I have been in contact with him as

9 well, and he verified the same, understood what was going on,

10 understood that -- there was a willingness to report any issues

11 of noncompliance, made that understanding -- made it -- made it

12 clear that he understood what was going on. And I would say

13 that I'm unaware of any concern that he had regarding what the

14 government suspects is some issue with that -- with that

15 relationship. He seemed willing to help and willing to

16 understand what would -- the expectations would be.

17 What's not in the Bond Report is that we, during the

18 interview, invited pretrial services to contact a state

19 probation officer. We provided a name, indicated this officer

20 was stationed out of Fargo who had information based on his

21 supervision of Mr. Derosier and to see, you know, what

22 Mr. Derosier had been doing, had he been compliant. I would

23 say he has been.

24 And it doesn't appear as though pretrial services has

25 even attempted to contact this officer. I believe it's Officer

22
1 Lund in Fargo who would have very important and relevant

2 information as to whether or not Mr. Derosier is supervisable.

3 I believe that he is amenable to supervision. And again, we

4 are proposing -- we have proposed to pretrial services that it

5 be home confinement.

6 And again, the Bond Report indicates that one strike

7 against release is that he has no verifiable employment, which

8 at this time I'm not going to dispute. At the same time, if

9 he's subject to home confinement condition, there's not that

10 additional concern about the individual being out at work, not

11 being at home for a certain amount of time, that he is going to

12 be at home, confined there nearly around the clock. Unless

13 there's some legal probation or medical appointment, he would

14 be confined to -- to his home.

15 And again, the proximity to the courthouse, proximity

16 to pretrial services office show that there are alternatives to

17 incarceration in this case.

18 This is -- again, the allegations that are out there

19 I -- I feel as though it puts us at a significant disadvantage

20 being unaware of those. As the government was making their

21 argument, I had looked at the docket. I didn't see that there

22 were any filed affidavits beyond what's in the Complaint in

23 this case. So not only I have not been given those, I don't

24 know if I could've found them independently on my own.

25 And so when the Court considers the weight of the

23
1 evidence, I'd ask the Court to consider the fact that the

2 defense in this case hasn't provided any information to

3 discuss, to review what the government has proffered today.

4 That's a factor the Court has to consider, but would just ask

5 the weight of the evidence and the weight to apply that factor

6 I think should be limited under these circumstances and

7 confined primarily to what's contained in the affidavit. That

8 does allege some serious conduct, Your Honor, but it's not

9 conduct so serious that he's -- he's a danger to the community.

10 These allegations, again, not only took place out of

11 the district, but timeline of them does not appear to be

12 recent. The allegations, even the conversations that were

13 depicted in the affidavit are over two years old, and the state

14 case has been going on for quite some time. Typically when

15 somebody, in my experience, has been arrested and charged in

16 federal court by a Complaint, there was some immediate conduct

17 that was alleged to have occurred. This is -- this is not the

18 case. The information confined to the Complaint is quite old.

19 Both -- both -- all three charges - excuse me - were alleged to

20 have occurred in 2020.

21 And so, you know, with that, Your Honor, I believe

22 that, again, there are -- there are conditions, that any

23 presumption has been overcome by the release plan, that he be

24 placed on home confinement at his residence under the

25 supervision of pretrial services, as well as a third-party

24
1 custodian in , and that those conditions alleviate any

2 concerns addressed in the Bond Report regarding risk of

3 nonappearance and risk of flight.

4 I'd just add too, as far as the failure to appears

5 are concerned, most of those didn't result in an arrest. Most

6 of those resulted in learning that there's a warrant and taking

7 care of it. A lot of those failure to appear entries come with

8 a subsequent entry that says warrant quashed.

9 He takes the cases seriously, but he's also -- these

10 are cases where he's out on bond and he's appearing by summons

11 and receiving legal documents in the mail, and so he could've

12 been better about staying on top of court hearings, but it's

13 not as though he was absconding. I believe that there's a

14 difference in these cases, missing court versus absconding.

15 In federal court this case is by far, if you take a

16 look at his record, the most serious case that he's going to

17 have to confront, whatever form that takes, whenever he's

18 indicted. We expect that this would be by and far the most

19 serious case that he will be confronting, and the case --

20 excuse me. The court hearings and the proceedings would be

21 limited in federal court as opposed to just check-ins regularly

22 in state court, and so I don't believe that the failure to

23 appears truly reflect his risk of nonappearance.

24 And again, his -- his time that he's been supervised

25 in the state show that he -- he is amenable to supervision.

25
1 The facts and circumstances leading to his arrest, where he was

2 found at his home, also indicate that he is not a risk of

3 flight, that he's -- this was -- law enforcement knew where he

4 was. Pretrial services are going to -- is going to know where

5 he is, and then based on that, Your Honor, we're asking for his

6 release under the conditions as I have proposed this afternoon.

7 THE COURT: Mr. Bellmore, the only information that

8 you have received is the Complaint and affidavit, is that

9 correct?

10 MR. BELLMORE: Yes. That's Document 1-1.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Puhl, I do have some concern

12 about proffering evidence that's not available to the defense.

13 MS. PUHL: I'm -- as I said, Your Honor, the search

14 warrant affidavits are available right now if he wants to

15 review them, and I'm certainly willing to provide those for

16 that purpose.

17 But I do want to address a couple of things that --

18 that has been said, and first, I take issue with the fact that

19 this isn't a serious crime. I think there are few cases, few

20 charges that are more serious. This involves the graphic

21 sexual abuse of prepubescent-aged boys. There's not one,

22 there's not two, there's not a hundred, there's thousands of

23 young boys who are sexually abused. And each one of those

24 videos, each one of those images represents a separate and

25 distinct victim that is being sexually abused, and this

26
1 defendant is distributing them to individuals who also have a

2 sexual interest in children.

3 Now, in order to get those images, he's also provided

4 images of his , Your Honor, in exchange for some of

5 the child pornography.

6 Now, defendant says that much of what we have in here

7 is old. A couple things that the defendant is not keeping in

8 mind is that the search warrant was executed in September

9 of 2020. That's when the phone was recovered. Now I'm

10 referring specifically to the phone that was seized from his

11 person. We didn't get access to that phone until October of

12 2021. That's two-and-a-half months ago. That information, I

13 suspect, wasn't available to Grand Forks. That's -- the phone

14 -- that phone is where much of this information comes.

15 And he's having conversations in 2020, up until the

16 point that phone is taken from him, and he's -- in those

17 conversations he's trading images of with other

18 like-minded individuals, trading child pornography, Your Honor.

19 So, yes, some of this is old -- older, but I think

20 when you -- when you take -- when you look at it in the context

21 of what's going on, when law enforcement gained access to that

22 particular cell phone, it makes sense, Your Honor.

23 Also, we selected conversations in -- or the officer

24 -- the agent selected conversations with other individuals that

25 predated the travel of to

27
1 North Dakota, because those conversations, he's -- he's

2 representing that he's engaging in sexual activity with these

3 so they become important because it -- it reveals what

4 his intent is when he picks them up.

5 According to , picks them up without her

6 permission and brings them over to North Dakota and takes

7 pictures of them, sexually suggestive pictures of them, so

8 those conversations were selected because it reflects what his

9 mindset is when he's picking up those children and bringing

10 them to North Dakota.

11 But, again, there are other conversations that

12 continue into 2020, near the point in time of when the

13 telephone -- rather, the cell phone was seized from the

14 defendant.

15 His being a hands-on offender, that's information

16 that's not -- that's not -- that is the only information that

17 I'm proffering that's not set forth in any sort of affidavit, I

18 believe, and that comes from, as I say, the HTC cell phone.

19 This alternative release option is a dangerous

20 alternative because much of what the defendant did, he can do

21 in his own home. He's sitting on his telephone or behind his

22 many devices, reaching out to children, adolescent-age

23 children, trading child pornography with other like-minded

24 individuals, Your Honor. All of that's happening in his home

25 and, therefore, I think it would be a dangerous alternative,

28
1 and I don't think anything he has submitted overcomes, again,

2 that presumption of detention, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Thank you.

4 MR. BELLMORE: Your Honor, can I make one comment?

5 THE COURT: Let me say first, Mr. Bellmore, I'm

6 inclined to continue the hearing to allow you to review the

7 search warrant affidavit and continue it to another day if

8 that's what you choose. But if you want to go ahead and tell

9 me what you want to tell me now, go ahead, Mr. Bellmore.

10 MR. BELLMORE: Well, just -- just to clarify, Your

11 Honor, what is charged in here is serious, but compared to what

12 the government was proffering, there's a difference, hands-on

13 sexual abuse. And certainly I wouldn't disagree that child

14 pornography depicts abuse. At the same time is -- the media

15 files does not mean the possessor or the distributor or even

16 the receiver is the one who abused the child, as depicted in

17 the -- in the image, and there -- and I -- there's a

18 distinction there.

19 So these are serious, but compared to, again, what

20 the statutory penalty ranges are, I -- I wanted to characterize

21 that as being minor as compared to what the government --

22 conduct the government was -- was proffering.

23 But if I have one moment, Your Honor?

24 THE COURT: Sure.

25 MR. BELLMORE: Your Honor, if -- yeah, I would agree

29
1 that and ask that we continue this proceeding so that I might

2 be able to review more information, review that with

3 Mr. Derosier before the Court makes a decision.

4 THE COURT: And how long a continuance would you

5 request, Mr. Bellmore?

6 MR. BELLMORE: I think by the end of the week, Your

7 Honor, would be enough time if I'm given the affidavits soon.

8 I'm generally available this week.

9 THE COURT: Okay. I think I would have time later

10 Thursday afternoon or later Friday afternoon. And by "later,"

11 I'm thinking 3 o'clock or later on both days. Ms. Puhl?

12 MS. PUHL: I may be out of town Friday, so my

13 preference would be Thursday, Your Honor.

14 MR. BELLMORE: I think that would be my preference

15 too, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Let's plan for a continuance of

17 the hearing. To be safe, I'll say 3:30 on Thursday,

18 January 6th. And in the meantime, Ms. Puhl, you will

19 provide --

20 MS. PUHL: Yep.

21 THE COURT: -- the search warrant affidavits to

22 Mr. Bellmore.

23 MS. PUHL: Yes.

24 THE COURT: So, Mr. Derosier, I'm not going to decide

25 the detention question today. We'll plan to have another

30
1 hearing after your attorney has a chance to look at those

2 search warrant affidavits. And then we'll be back here, and

3 I'll make a decision at that time.

4 THE DEFENDANT: Okay.

5 THE COURT: Do you understand that?

6 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Puhl, anything else

8 today?

9 MS. PUHL: Nothing further, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Mr. Bellmore, anything else today?

11 MR. BELLMORE: Nothing further, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Thank you, all. We're adjourned.

13 (A recess was taken from 3:43 p.m., Tuesday,

14 January 4, 2022, to 3:30 p.m., Thursday, January 6, 2022.)

15 - - - - - - - - - -

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31
1 (The above-entitled matter came before the Court, The

2 Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States District Court

3 Magistrate Judge, presiding, commencing at 3:30 p.m., Thursday,

4 January 6, 2022, in the United States Courthouse, Fargo, North

5 Dakota. The following proceedings were had and made of record

6 by digital recording in open court with the defendant present.)

7 - - - - - - - - - - -

8 THE COURT: Today is January 6, 2022. It is

9 3:30 p.m. This is a hearing in Case Number 3:21-mj-521, United

10 States of America versus Nicholas Morgan-Derosier. Jennifer

11 Puhl is here representing the United States. Mr. Derosier is

12 present and represented by Chris Bellmore from the Federal

13 Public Defender's Office. Meghan Nelson from the pretrial

14 services is also here in the courtroom.

15 And we do have a couple of people who are present

16 telephonically. I granted that request. I just mention that,

17 and I will say to the two of you, if you have any difficulty

18 hearing at any point, please let us know so that we can attempt

19 to remedy that.

20 This is a continuation of a detention hearing. I

21 continued it to allow the defense some time to review search

22 warrant affidavits to which the United States had referred in

23 its proffer of evidence, and the United States has provided

24 those to me at my request as well.

25 So I think, Mr. Bellmore, I will allow you to go

32
1 first this afternoon, and we can go from there.

2 MR. BELLMORE: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. I would

3 incorporate the arguments that I'd made at the initial

4 detention -- detention hearing into my arguments this

5 afternoon. I thank the Court for allowing us the opportunity

6 to pause the proceeding to review the search warrant

7 affidavits, as well as thank the government for providing those

8 in a -- in a timely matter (sic). We have reviewed those, and

9 based -- based on that review, my position is unchanged, at

10 least with respect to the weight of the evidence.

11 These warrants were obtained. I tracked the nature

12 of the investigation, and essentially seek, as search warrants

13 do, permission to seize and investigate certain items,

14 including e-mail addresses, phones, cars and premises. The

15 weight of the evidence here would be the fruits of those that

16 were provided, and I don't believe that that's exactly what is

17 detailed in those search warrant affidavits. Again, it's

18 showing where the investigation is headed.

19 I think the information yet is still limited and

20 would ask the Court to rely on the weight of evidence based on

21 the probable cause affidavit in this case to charge

22 Mr. Derosier via the Complaint and the three charges that are

23 listed in there.

24 And also note too that the weight of -- the

25 government's argument is relying heavily on, if not exclusively

33
1 on the weight of the evidence here. The evidence here is an

2 ongoing investigation, Your Honor. I'm not going to litigate

3 every fact or allegation. I still can't do that, and I still

4 don't think that's necessary for a detention hearing. Several

5 Courts have found that the weight of the evidence as a factor

6 is the least important of which. Too heavily relying on that

7 factor overshadows the presumption of innocence.

8 And I think all the other factors indicate here,

9 despite serious allegations, that there are alternatives to

10 incarceration. Again, that is the release plan that we have

11 set forward at the first hearing, that he has a condominium

12 nearby the courthouse, nearby pretrial services office.

13 The government tried to raise some information that

14 that may not be an option for him going forward. We would

15 dispute that. That was based on the landlord relationship with

16 Mr. Derosier and Mr. Derosier's significant other.

17 They mentioned that they've fallen behind on

18 payments. My understanding is those payments are up to date,

19 that there may've been a prior working relationship there, but

20 that the contract is still good. There's no intention to try

21 to evict or initiate some legal proceedings to void the

22 contract for deed, that that remains a housing option for him.

23 That's a housing option.

24 Again, the proximity - I think it's significant - to

25 pretrial services office, where we -- he would live with his

34
1 significant other, who has told pretrial services that he would

2 serve as a third-party custodian, understanding what those

3 obligations would be.

4 Not only that, I had offered as a condition that

5 Mr. Derosier be placed on home confinement conditions. That

6 would prohibit him from leaving his home unless he had

7 permission under limited circumstances by a pretrial services

8 officer. And that would be monitored through geographic

9 technology, location monitoring where pretrial services would

10 know exactly where he's at.

11 The question of employment is one that's often --

12 often relevant. If someone is out and working, that that is a

13 factor that is in their favor. Certainly in this day and age

14 and with Mr. Derosier's education and -- and work history, he'd

15 be able to find employment. At this moment in time he was

16 between formal jobs. But in this case, if there's concerns

17 about his whereabouts, not working at the present time I think

18 is something that is in his favor.

19 He'd be able to maintain the premises.

20 , the third-party custodian, is able to work and --

21 and pay for living expenses, and that would keep Mr. Derosier

22 at home at more hours during the day. There wouldn't be any

23 concerns about to and from work and -- and the whereabouts. He

24 would be home more often, so I think that -- that employment is

25 a -- is a neutral factor. It kind of cuts both ways. If the

35
1 Court is concerned about employment, Mr. Derosier can be

2 gainfully employed.

3 One thing too of note -- I'm not sure if I mentioned

4 it at first, but Mr. Derosier is undergoing a construction case

5 that's out of Grand Forks. That is a case that's not related

6 to this. That has not been dismissed. And there's also a

7 civil case with regard to the business.

8 Now, in the construction criminal case he has

9 appointed counsel. He's entitled to that. In the civil case

10 he is not. He's essentially defending that case on his own,

11 which is next to impossible when he's incarcerated, and I think

12 that is a factor that's relevant as well.

13 More relevant is that this was a state case. This

14 was a state case that was dismissed on December 30th. He was

15 out on bond during that case. He was required to follow

16 conditions and be where he needed to be, and he did so. There

17 was not a revocation of that bond. So when he had an

18 opportunity to run from that case, he didn't, and he would not

19 run from this case.

20 Again, when I address the failure to appears -- and

21 the failure to appears are not a situation where he was

22 absconding from law enforcement or avoiding cases. They were

23 miscommunications, which is unfortunate. And not

24 insignificant -- not irrelevant, but I think insignificant in

25 the grand scheme of things is, though, he would check in with

36
1 court and get those matters taken care of.

2 And again, in this federal case those obligations to

3 check into court for hearings that is notified by mail is not

4 going to be an option. He would have direct communications

5 with a pretrial services officer and, again, have location

6 monitoring, and he would be accountable that way, Your Honor.

7 So I think that the proposed conditions here address

8 all of the concerns raised by the government, raised by the

9 pretrial services office, that those risks are mitigated by

10 home confinement at his own residence that's nearby the

11 courthouse and the pretrial services office, especially

12 considering his -- the way he had stuck around for his state

13 case, again, something that he had denied, something that he is

14 going to defend, and something he's going to do here. He has

15 no interest in running from this case, demonstrated by his

16 behavior during the state case, and again, that -- that

17 mitigates against any -- any risk of nonappearance.

18 So, Your Honor, I'm asking again that Mr. Derosier be

19 released on pretrial release pending trial in this case.

20 THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Puhl.

21 MS. PUHL: Your Honor, the defendant ignores the --

22 I'm sorry. Closer?

23 THE COURT: Closer, yes.

24 MS. PUHL: Your Honor, the defendant has said nothing

25 about the presumption of detention in this case, which he has

37
1 not because he cannot overcome. He is a hands-on offender of

2 children, children who have been identified by Special Agent

3 Smith, and some of whom have been interviewed and confirm that

4 they did, in fact, engage in sexual activity, some intercourse,

5 some oral sex with this defendant or with the defendant and

6 James McHaney; Mr. McHaney, if you recall, who is in BOP

7 custody as -- today.

8 Now, I proffered all of this on Tuesday, and I

9 realize the defendant didn't have the discovery, but it's no

10 matter because the Bail Reform Act is very, very clear that the

11 parties, including the defendant, can proceed by proffer even

12 in the face when they haven't had the discovery yet, Your

13 Honor. Now, it's up to Her Honor to determine how much weight

14 to give, but it's very clear that the parties can proceed by

15 proffer, and it's designed to do that at this -- at this stage.

16 Now, our case is not limited to the weight of the

17 evidence, our recommendation or -- but, rather, it's based on

18 the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, perhaps

19 most significantly, the history and characteristics of this

20 person, his mental condition, his family ties, his lack of

21 employment, and I'll talk about that in a moment.

22 But again, that -- the weight of the evidence is

23 something that the United States did, in fact, rely on, but

24 that's limited to the Complaint. That's the child pornography.

25 What's charged here is the child pornography charges and his

38
1 traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in

2 sexual activity with these two children, so that's very strong.

3 But I mention all this other stuff, the fact that

4 he's a hands-on offender, not a charged offense; the fact that

5 he's communicating with numerous individuals who share a sexual

6 interest in prepubescent-aged children. These are individuals,

7 Your Honor, that the defendant has shared images of

8 with. These are individuals he's expressed a sexual interest

9 in children with, in particular ,

10 .

11 Some of those conversations, again, are set forth in

12 the Complaint affidavit, and they are earlier in time because,

13 as I said, they predate the travel when he went and picked up

14 in the metro area in Minnesota and brought them to

15 North Dakota. But as I proffered, there are other

16 conversations where he represents that he's sexually interested

17 in and -- and/or engaging in sexual activity with

18 them.

19 After that travel takes place, he takes sexually

20 suggestive images of the . The now is .

21 I think at the time he would've been .

22 In addition, the defendant possessed thousands of

23 files of child pornography, video files, image files that

24 depict the graphic sexual abuse of prepubescent-aged boys.

25 Now, I would submit that this information is sufficient in and

39
1 of itself to conclude that the defendant poses a serious risk

2 of danger to the community, but, nonetheless, we have -- or but

3 in addition we have all this other stuff that, again, I either

4 proffered or am relying on the affidavits.

5 So in the end, I mean, we're not just looking at the

6 weight of the evidence, we're looking at the nature and

7 circumstances of the offense conduct and the defendant's

8 character and his history, including his criminal history,

9 including allegations that he was running sham businesses,

10 accepting payment for services and never performing those

11 services, not paying his employees.

12 In addition to all that, there are these concerns

13 about the proposed residence. As I said, as I proffered, that

14 the owner of the condo told HSI on Tuesday morning, after I

15 received and read the P -- the presentence investigation

16 report (sic), that there was a contract for deed. The

17 defendant has made one payment on it, one payment, that's it,

18 and that he is -- he is taking steps to get the property back.

19 Now, the defendant says otherwise, but he hasn't

20 offered any foundation for that, so I assume it's his

21 statement, the statement of an individual who's -- who's a sham

22 artist, Your Honor. The owner says this.

23 In addition, we have the condo -- the association --

24 or the president of the condo association that says he hasn't

25 paid his condo dues, his special assessments. All that would

40
1 confirm what Mr. Biel has said about the -- about his failure

2 to pay -- to make any payments on the condo, so it looks like

3 this defendant is not going to have a place to return to.

4 And he has no job, and that's -- that's problematic

5 for somebody who is such a prolific collector and trader of

6 child pornography. He's at -- these are all things he can do

7 at home, so at home with no job is concerning. It's perilous.

8 And he's living with a young man who he's offered up to other

9 men, Your Honor, and again, I proffered that as well.

10 And, finally, there are the defendant -- there are

11 these warrants that have been issued for his failure to appear.

12 I know he has explanations for them, but in the end they are

13 warrants for him. He did fail to appear.

14 So collectively the defendant is not a good candidate

15 for release even aside from the presumption of detention, but,

16 of course, we have that presumption of detention that he has

17 not overcome. He has not overcome the fact that he's a

18 hands-on offender, that he's communicating with people that

19 have a like interest in prepubescent-aged boys, that he's

20 sharing images of with these individuals, and in

21 return receiving child pornography, that he's taken images --

22 sexually suggestive images of these boys.

23 So in the end, Your Honor, the defendant's suggestion

24 for release is -- as I said, it's reckless and perilous.

25 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Bellmore.

41
1 MR. BELLMORE: Your Honor, I'm just going to object

2 to the government's characterization of the rebuttable

3 presumption. The government indicated we had failed to rebut

4 the government's allegations and arguments. The presumption is

5 that there are no conditions available. That is a presumption

6 that is overcome by us bearing the burden of production. I

7 have produced a release plan that overcomes them, that is

8 enough to overcome the rebuttable presumption, and then that

9 puts the burden of persuasion ultimately on the government.

10 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else that either

11 counsel wants to put on the record?

12 MS. PUHL: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.

13 MR. BELLMORE: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Derosier, I'm going to

15 grant the motion for detention, so you will stay in custody at

16 this time. There is a presumption because of the nature of the

17 charge against you. There is a presumption for detention. As

18 Mr. Bellmore just pointed out, there has been some rebuttal of

19 that presumption by presenting a release plan, but I still

20 consider the presumption even though that release plan has been

21 presented.

22 There is, of course, some question about the

23 availability of the condo as a residence. That's something I

24 consider. I consider the information that the United States

25 has proffered as to the circumstances surrounding the offense.

42
1 I have considered the information in the affidavits supporting

2 the Complaint and the information in the affidavits supporting

3 the applications for search warrants.

4 I have considered the criminal history information

5 that is a part of the pretrial services report, including the

6 nature of the charges pending against you concerning the

7 construction business, because there is a serious allegation of

8 deception in connection with that.

9 So in summary, having considered all of the factors

10 set out in 18 USC 3142(g), I find that the government has met

11 the burden to prove that there is no condition or combination

12 of conditions that would reasonably assure community safety and

13 reasonably assure appearance at future proceedings. There will

14 be a written order to that effect issued shortly.

15 Ms. Puhl, was there anything else needing attention?

16 MS. PUHL: Nothing further, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Mr. Bellmore?

18 MR. BELLMORE: Nothing further, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: And I'll just ask for confirmation.

20 There's been a waiver of the preliminary hearing, is that

21 correct? The clerk is telling me yes.

22 MR. BELLMORE: Yes, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, all. We're adjourned.

24 (Proceedings concluded at 3:48 p.m., the same day.)

- - - - - - - - - -

43
 CERTIFICATE

State of North Dakota )

) ss

County of Burleigh )

I, Sandra E. Ehrmantraut, do hereby certify that the

foregoing and attached typewritten pages contain an accurate

transcription, to the best of my ability, of said digital

recording made at the time and place herein indicated.

Dated: March 8, 2022

/s/ Sandra E. Ehrmantraut

44