Order — No. 1:23-cr-00223 (Dkt. 55, M.D.N.C.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Chauncey Alexander Hollis, 1:23CR223-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, filed October 10, 2024 as Document 55 (7 pages) and signed by Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster. It grants the Government's motion to revoke conditions of the defendant's pre-trial release (Docket Entry 46) after a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3148, and orders him detained pending further proceedings. The order recounts his June 26, 2023 indictment on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and three notices of apparent violation of release conditions from the Probation Office. It finds clear and convincing evidence of a violation and that he is unlikely to abide by any conditions.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order — No. 1:23-cr-00223 (Dkt. 55, M.D.N.C.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-no-1-23-cr-00223-dkt-55-m-d-n-c-79c318bb8c/, SHA-256 4ced3ac67947dfe1e7a9886b26b8764e39ec7004d2f357c142de5dcde0ec4533.

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 1:23CR223-1
)
CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER HOLLIS )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s motion to revoke conditions of

Defendant’s pre-trial release. (Docket Entry 46.) The Government asserts that Defendant

Chauncey Alexander Hollis (“Defendant”) has committed several offenses in violation of his

present release conditions. The case was thereafter brought before the Court for a hearing

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148. At the hearing, the undersigned ordered that Defendant be

detained pending further proceedings in this matter.

I. BACKGROUND

On or about June 26, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud and theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371. (See Docket Entry 1.) Hearings were held in the matter, and at their conclusion, the

Court orally ordered Defendant’s release as it was determined that there were conditions that

would reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant for further proceedings and the safety

of the community. (Minute Entries dated 2/20/2024, 2/27/2024, 3/4/2024; Docket Entries

29, 30.)1 Defendant thereafter entered a plea agreement, which the Court accepted, and

1
The Government withdrew its motion to detain Defendant.

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 1 of 7
Defendant was ordered to remain at large under the terms and conditions of release. (See

Docket Entry 33; Minute Entry dated 3/26/2024.)

On July 5, 2024, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) issued a Notice of

Apparent Violation of Conditions of Release, which alleged that Defendant tested positive for

cocaine on May 31, 2024. (Docket Entry 36.) Consistent with the USPO’s recommendation,

the Court ordered that Defendant remain under the same conditions of release. (Text Order

dated 7/8/2024.) On July 25, 2024, the USPO issued a second Notice of Apparent Violation

of Conditions of Release, which alleged that Defendant was a subject of interest in a hit and

run that occurred on May 24, 2024, and that Defendant was arrested on July 20, 2024, for

misdemeanor driving under the influence. (Docket Entry 39.) The undersigned held a hearing

and ordered that Defendant remain under conditions of release and be restricted to his local

residence until his sentencing the following day. (Minute Entry dated 8/1/2024; Text Order

dated 8/1/2024.) Defendant’s sentencing was ultimately continued, and Defendant remained

under conditions of release, with the additional requirement that he be tested for prohibited

substances on a weekly basis. (See Minute Entry dated 8/2/2024; Text Order dated

9/10/2024.) On August 26, 2024, the USPO issued a third Notice of Apparent Violation of

Conditions of Release, which alleged, among other things, that Defendant tested positive for

cocaine on August 8, 2024. (Docket Entry 45.) Accordingly, the Government moved to

revoke Defendant’s conditions of pre-trial release. (Docket Entry 46.)

A revocation hearing was held in this matter on October 3, 2024. At the revocation

hearing, United States Probation Officer Sonya Schroeder first set forth a summary of

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 7
Defendant’s adjustment to supervision.2 Defendant became a subject of interest for a hit and

run occurring on May 24, 2024, involving a vehicle that Defendant had rented and that

sustained over $10,000 in damages. The investigation remains pending. On May 31, 2024,

Defendant tested positive for cocaine. He denied use. The results were verified by lab testing.

On July 20, 2024, Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He has

not yet been convicted for that offense. As previously stated, Defendant was subject to

additional conditions, including weekly drug testing. (See Text Order dated 8/1/2024; Minute

Entry dated 8/2/2024.)

As to the latest Notice of Apparent Violation (Docket Entry 45), Officer Schroeder

testified that on August 8, 2024, Defendant again tested positive for cocaine. The results were

again verified by lab testing. He again denied use, claiming that the positive test must have

resulted from his consumption of energy drinks or male enhancement supplements. The

laboratory used by the probation office advised that no over-the-counter substance or

prescribed medication would produce the positive cocaine test. Officer Schroeder testified

that at Defendant’s sentencing hearing,3 he represented that he was receiving drug and alcohol

treatment three times per week. When Officer Schroeder attempted to verify that information

with the supervising officer in California, she was informed that Defendant was only receiving

counseling once per month.

2
Officer Schroeder is the local officer assigned to this matter; Defendant is being supervised
out of the Central District of California.
3
Defendant’s sentencing hearing has been continued to October 31, 2024. (See Docket Entry
53.)
3

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 3 of 7
Officer Schroeder also testified that photographs of Defendant were posted on

Defendant’s Facebook account during his pre-trial release. The photographs depicted

Defendant making gang signs with his hands, drinking alcohol, appearing driving after his

license was suspended, holding cash with what appeared to be marijuana, and wearing a

ballistic vest while mixing an unknown substance. Officer Schroeder spoke with an expert in

the probation office who identified the gang signs as associated with the Bloods. Officer

Schroeder also testified that Defendant works in the rap industry but is unaware if Defendant’s

Facebook postings are related to his work. The supervising officer informed Officer

Schroeder that Defendant has been combative at times, has used explicit language in the office,

and is difficult to supervise. Defendant has been convicted of previous drug offenses. Officer

Schroeder believes that Defendant should be detained considering the continued violations.

Defendant testified on his own behalf. Defendant stated that he has never used

cocaine. He was surprised by his positive cocaine test, believed the probation officer set him

up, and Defendant even hired a private lab to verify the results. Defendant testified that the

private lab also returned a positive test and told him that it could have been a male

enhancement that caused the result. However, two women later told Defendant that they had

taken cocaine (without Defendant’s knowledge) which remained in the women’s mouths when

they performed oral sex on him. One of those women agreed to sign an affidavit, which the

Court admitted.4 Defendant believed this incident—which occurred at least 10 times—was

the cause of his positive cocaine tests.

4
The affidavit from Tonalaya Green indicates that she would have “bumps of cocaine” before
engaging in sexual activities with Defendant and her drug use was without Defendant’s knowledge.
4

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 4 of 7
Defendant denies verbal abuse towards the probation officer, except using profanity

when stating that he never did cocaine. Regarding substance abuse treatment, Defendant

states that he was participating in group treatment online three times a week. 5 Regarding the

hit and run on May 24, 2024, Defendant states that he was at a boxing event in Pasadena,

California when it occurred. He took videos while at the event. Defendant states that he

turned in the rented vehicle to a mobile detailer who then took it for a “joyride.” Finally,

Defendant states that the Facebook photographs were shots from music videos and movie

sets.6 Defendant was paid to make these sorts of videos, and Defendant’s agent/manager

posted pictures from the videos on social media to promote them. The hand symbols

Defendant made were not intended to be gang signs but people he was portraying. Defendant

states that one of the photos showed him holding CBD, not marijuana, which he had been

paid to promote. Another photo depicted him holding a can of Old English alcohol, which

he did not drink—Defendant doubted there was even alcohol in it. While some of the photos

were intended to make him look like he was smoking marijuana or mixing cocaine, Defendant

states that these are photos from movie/video sets.7

5
Defendant submitted correspondence regarding his participation in a treatment program,
some which included a program that Defendant was physically present. He also submitted a picture
of himself during booking. Defendant also submitted a contract related to his work projects.
6
The Government questioned Defendant about the photos, which were submitted to the
Court.
7
Defendant also stated during his testimony that he desires to withdraw his plea agreement in
light of his actual innocence.
5

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 5 of 7
After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence presented, at the end of the

revocation hearing, the Court orally ordered Defendant’s detention pending disposition of this

case.

II. DISCUSSION

A person who has been released pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, and “who has violated

a condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a

prosecution for contempt of court.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). Once the government initiates a

proceeding, the judicial officer that ordered the release can issue an arrest warrant for the arrest

of the alleged violator. The alleged violator is brought before the judicial officer. 18 U.S.C. §

3148(b). An order of revocation and detention is entered after a hearing if a judicial officer

determines that there is:

(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or
local crime while on release; or
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other
condition of release; and

(2) finds that—

(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is
no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure
that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community; or

(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of
conditions of release.

Id. § 3148(b)(1)-(2).

First, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that there is

clear and convincing evidence that Defendant violated the conditions of his release. As stated

above, Defendant tested positive for cocaine which was confirmed by lab testing. His

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 6 of 7
explanation for the positive test, which essentially points to lack of knowledge, is unpersuasive.

See United States v. Hope, No. 1:17 CR 95-2, 2018 WL 490552, at *1-2 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2018)

(unpublished) (finding, among other things, clear and convincing evidence of cocaine use in

violation of pretrial release conditions based on a positive drug test, despite defendant’s claim

that he had taken cocaine unintentionally). Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence that

Defendant violated the conditions of his release.

Next, having considered the information presented, the Court finds that Defendant is

unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. This Court has

already given Defendant multiple chances to conform his behavior to his conditions of release,

and he has repeatedly failed to do so, demonstrating an inability to comply with the rules of

this Court. Additionally, there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that

will assure Defendant will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the

community. Therefore, the Court will enter an order of revocation and detention.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Government’s motion to revoke conditions of

Defendant’s pre-trial release (Docket Entry 46) is GRANTED and Defendant shall be

detained pending further proceedings in this matter.

/s/ Joe L. Webster
United States Magistrate Judge

October 10, 2024
Durham, North Carolina

Case 1:23-cr-00223-TDS Document 55 Filed 10/10/24 Page 7 of 7

File and source

File: 55.pdf
Size: 138,347 bytes
SHA-256: 4ced3ac67947dfe1e7a9886b26b8764e39ec7004d2f357c142de5dcde0ec4533
Our copy: 55.pdf
Original: No public link identified.