Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Rodriguez

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 19, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
4. LOUIS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING RELEASE ON BOND PENDING TRIAL

          William J. Martínez, United States District Judge.

         On May 17, 2017, Defendant Louis Rodriguez was arraigned by United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on the charges brought against him in the Indictment. (ECF Nos. 1, 35.) Subsequently, on May 23, 2017, a detention hearing was held before United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (ECF No. 40.) At the detention hearing, Defendant's counsel requested bond, which the Government opposed. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Mix found by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant at future hearings, and by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community. (ECF No. 41.) Therefore, Defendant was ordered detained. (Id.)

         On September 11, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for De Novo Review of Detention Order and Request for Hearing (“Motion”). (ECF No. 63.) Defendant states that “[t]here are certain portions of the detention order with which [Defendant] disagrees, including the concerns regarding child support, his family relationships, and his work history.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant further states that he has been offered full-time employment with a cloud based computing company located in Denver, Colorado. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant requests the opportunity to “present [such] evidence at a hearing on this motion.” (Id. ¶ 14.)

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         A district court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's detention order. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 n.1 (10th Cir. 2003); 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). A district judge reviewing a magistrate judge's detention order may consider the evidence presented during the original detention hearing and may permit the parties to submit new evidence. Cisneros, 327 F.3d at 617. Although the Court's review is de novo, an evidentiary hearing is not required. See United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1251 (D. Kan. 2002).

         II. GENERAL LAW RELEVANT TO PRETRIAL DETENTION

         Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant may be detained pending trial only if a judicial officer finds “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e); id. § 3142(b), (c). A judicial officer may make such a finding only after holding a hearing according to the procedures specified in § 3142(f), and the government ordinarily bears the burden of proof at that hearing. The government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and it must prove dangerousness to any other person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

         “[I]n determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, ” the judicial officer must consider:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including-
(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.