United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Leonard Luton's
Motion for Revocation of Detention Order (Doc. # 36). The
Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings, applicable law,
and pertinent record. For the following reasons, Mr.
Luton's Motion is DENIED.
criminal action arises from an indictment filed on March 6,
2019 (Doc. # 20), charging Mr. Luton with five counts of
fraud and conducting a scheme or device to defraud under
false pretenses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and
1342. A five-day jury trial is set to commence on August 19,
2019. (Doc. # 33.)
on the indictment, the nature of this case is that Mr. Luton
and his associates allegedly "devised and intended to
devise, and participated in a scheme and artifice to defraud
victim S.O., by obtaining property, to wit, approximately
$900, 000 in United States currency, by means of false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises relating
to a lottery scheme and artifice to defraud[.]" (Doc. #
20 at 1.) Mr. Luton and his associates allegedly told S.O.,
an 80-year-old woman, that she had "won a lottery and
needed to make certain payments in order to collect the
winnings" and those "payments were routed through
others to" Mr. Luton and his associates. (Id.)
March 7, 2019, Mr. Luton was arraigned and attended a
discovery hearing with Magistrate Judge Hegarty. (Doc. # 23.)
On that day, Mr. Luton waived his right to a detention
hearing with Magistrate Judge Crews and was remanded into
custody because Mr. Luton "was on Writ from Larimer
County for state charges stemming from the conduct in the
instant case." (Doc. # 26 at 3.) While Mr. Luton was
granted bond in the Larimer County case, he was unable to
afford the bond amount of $450, 000. (Id.)
Therefore, if Magistrate Judge Crews released Mr. Luton, it
would have been into the custody of Larimer County, and Mr.
Luton would not have received any time-served for a possible
federal sentence. (Id.)
14, 2019, the Larimer County case was dismissed against Mr.
Luton. (Doc. # 26-1.) Mr. Luton then requested that the Court
reopen Mr. Luton's detention hearing (Doc. # 26), and, on
March 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Crews granted that motion
(Doc. # 28). On March 20, 2019, the United States of America
submitted a memorandum in support of Mr. Luton's pretrial
detention. (Doc. # 29.) On March 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge
Crews held a hearing on Mr. Luton's Motion to Reopen
Detention Hearing. (Doc. # 30.) At the hearing, Magistrate
Judge Crews concluded that, based on the evidence, the
Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
"there are no or is no condition or combination of
conditions that the Court can impose to reasonably assure Mr.
Luton's appearance, as required, and, therefore," he
ordered that Mr. Luton be detained pending trial. (Doc. #
36-1 at 31.)
same day, Magistrate Judge Crews issued a written Order of
Detention Pending Trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3142(f)(2). (Doc. # 31.) His reasons for detention included:
• Weight of the evidence against the defendant is strong
• Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if
• Lack of stable employment
• Lack of stable residence in this district
• Lack of financially responsible sureties
• Lack of significant community or family ties to this
• Significant family or other ties outside the United
• Use of alias(es) or false documents
April 26, 2019, Mr. Luton moved this Court for an Order
revoking his detention order. (Doc. # 36.) On May 21, 2019,
the Court held a hearing on Mr. Luton's Motion for
Revocation of Detention Order (Doc. # 39.) At that hearing,
the Court heard argument from counsel for the Government and
Mr. Luton and, although the Court gave both parties an
opportunity to submit new evidence into the record, neither
party submitted any testimony or exhibits. Based on the
Court's review of the previous record, pleadings,
applicable law, and argument heard at the May 21, 2019
hearing, Mr. Luton's Motion is denied.
Court's review of the magistrate judge's order of
detention is de novo. See United States v. Cisneros,
328 F.3d 610, 616 n.1 (10th Cir. 2003). Under this standard
of review, the Court must judge the issue anew, but in so
doing, the Court may utilize the factual and evidentiary
record developed during the detention hearing before
Magistrate Judge Crews. Id. The Court, however, must
reach its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
See United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
1985) (finding that on de novo review, a district court
"should not simply defer to the judgment of the
magistrate, but reach its own independent conclusion").
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). The Government has
the burden of proof. Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 616.
"It 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."
Id. (citations omitted). "A detention order
must include 'written findings of fact and a written
statement of the reasons for the detention,' but a
reviewing district court can state its reasons for detention
'in writing, or orally on the record[.]'"
United States v. Mobley, 720 Fed.Appx. 441, 444
(10th Cir. 2017) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)) (internal
§ 3142(g), the judicial officer must consider four
factors as part of the evaluation!.]" Id. 18