Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Ramirez-Arenas

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 22, 2019



          Christine M. Arguello, United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jorge Ramirez-Arenas's Motion to Dismiss Indictment. (Doc. # 20.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court denies Mr. Ramirez-Arenas's motion.


         The Government indicted Mr. Ramirez-Arenas, whom it alleges is “an alien present in the United States illegally and unlawfully, ” on two counts related to unlawfully obtaining and possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 922(a)(6), on January 24, 2019. (Doc. # 1.)

         Mr. Ramirez-Arenas was arrested and made his initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on February 1, 2019. (Doc. ## 4-5.) The Government did not request a ten-day detention of Mr. Ramirez-Arenas to permit deportation under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d)(1)(b) but rather asked to continue the Court's determination on Mr. Ramirez-Arenas's detention. See (Doc. # 5.)

         On February 6, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews conducted a detention hearing and, after hearing argument from both parties, ordered that Mr. Ramirez-Arenas be released on bond after an inspection of his residence under provisions of the Bail Reform Act (“BRA”). (Doc. # 10.) Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Crews's order, Mr. Ramirez-Arenas was released on February 11, 2019, on an unsecured bond of $2, 000 and subject to other conditions. (Doc. ## 13-15.) The Government did not seek review of Magistrate Judge Crews's order to release Mr. Ramirez-Arenas.

         The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took custody of Mr. Ramirez-Arenas upon his release on February 11, 2019, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Doc. # 20 at 2; Doc. # 28 at 2.) The following day, February 12, 2019, ICE transported Mr. Ramirez-Arenas to the GEO Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, and served him with a Notice of Custody Determination (Doc. # 20-1) and a Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Doc. # 20-2). Mr. Ramirez-Arenas requested “an immigration judge review of [ICE's] custody determination” when he signed the Notice of Custody Determination that day. (Doc. # 20-1.) ICE initiated removal proceedings against him. (Doc. # 28 at 2.)

         Having requested review of his detention by ICE, Mr. Ramirez-Arenas appeared in immigration court on February 21, 2019. (Id.; Doc. # 20 at 3.) The Government opposed any release of Mr. Ramirez-Arenas, and Mr. Ramirez-Arenas presented letters and made argument in support of release. (Doc. # 20 at 3.) United States Immigration Judge Elizabeth McGrail ordered that Mr. Ramirez-Arenas be released from custody if he posted a $2, 000 bond. (Doc. # 20-4); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A). The following day, February 22, 2019, a third party posted the $2, 000 bond for Mr. Ramirez-Arenas, and ICE released him from the GEO Detention Facility that evening. (Doc. # 20 at 3.)

         Mr. Ramirez-Arenas filed the Motion to Dismiss Indictment presently before the Court on February 26, 2019. (Id.) The Government filed its Response on March 28, 2019. (Doc. # 28.) A four-day jury trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on June 17, 2019. (Doc. # 23.)


         Mr. Ramirez-Arenas argues that the Government ran afoul of the Bail Reform Act (“BRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141, et seq., when it used its immigration enforcement authority to detain him after he had been released on bond in this criminal matter and to then “impose additional conditions on [him] in order for him to obtain” his release from detention at the GEO Detention Facility. (Doc. # 20 at 4.) His argument assumes that the BRA conflicts in part with the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq. (Id.)


         “In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” United States v. Ailon-Ailon, 874 F.3d 1334, 1336 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987)). The BRA “sets forth one such exception.” Id. It dictates that a defendant may be subject to pretrial detention if a judicial offer 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)(1).

         “Congress chose not to exclude removable aliens for consideration for release or detention in criminal proceedings.” Ailon-Ailon, 874 F.3d at 1338 (quoting United States v. Santos-Flores, 794 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2015)). It did, however, “set forth” in Section 3142(d) of the BRA “‘specific procedures to be followed when a judicial officer determines that a defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for permanent resident'” Id. (quoting Santos-Flores, 794 F.3d at 1091); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d). Under Section 3142(d), “if a judicial officer determines that (a) the defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and (b), he may flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community, then the judicial officer ‘shall order the detention of such person for a period of not more than ten days.'”[1] United States v. Rangel, 318 F.Supp.3d 1212, 1218 (E.D. Wash. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d)). During this detention period of or less than ten days, “ICE may elect to take the defendant into immigration custody to pursue immigration proceedings.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d)); Ailon-Ailon, 875 F.3d at 1338. If, however, ICE “fails or declines to take such person into custody during that period, such person shall be treated in accordance with other provisions of this section, notwithstanding the applicability of other provisions of law governing release pending trial or deportation or exclusion proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d).

         Section 3142(d) is the only provision of the BRA that expressly refers to persons who are not citizens of the United States. “There is nothing else in the BRA that places any special or additional conditions on persons who are not citizens.” United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1174 (D. Or. 2012). For example, as the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has observed, “although Congress established a rebuttable presumption that certain defendants should be detained, it did not include removable aliens on that list.” Ailon-Ailon, 875 F.3d at 1338 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)). Similarly, though Congress “expressly list[ed] the factors that a court should consider when determining whether a particular defendant should be released under pretrial supervision or confined pending trial, . . . alien status is not a listed factor.” Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F.Supp.2d at 1174 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)).


         The INA “contains the basic body of immigration law in the United States.” Id. Among other things, the INA charges the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) with “the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws related to 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.