United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on defendant Jason Oaks'
Motion for Revocation of Magistrate Judge's Detention
Order [Docket No. 216] of Magistrate Judge Scott
Varholak's Order of Detention [Docket No. 139], entered
on March 26, 2019. The United States has filed a response
[Docket No. 221].
seeks revocation of the magistrate judge's detention
order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) and requests that he be
released on an unsecured bond. Docket No. 216 at 5. At the
detention hearing on March 26, 2019, the defendant did not
contest detention. Id. at 2.
for Detention Under the Bail Reform Act
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). The government bears the burden of proof at a
detention hearing. Id. The government must prove
risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and must
prove dangerousness to any person or to the community by
clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
deciding whether there are conditions of release that would
assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the
community, the magistrate judge must consider the following
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a
violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or
involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm,
explosive, or destructive device;
(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
(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 person's
release. . . .
One of the indictment names the defendant, among others, and
charges a conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms
of cocaine. This count carries a ten-year mandatory minimum
and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A), Count One has a
rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention. In order to
rebut this presumption, a defendant must produce some
evidence. United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353,
1355 (10th Cir. 1991). Although a defendant may present
evidence and rebut the presumption, the Court may
nevertheless take the presumption into account as a factor in
determining whether detention is appropriate. Id.
The defendant is also charged with three other counts (use of
a communications device in connection with drug trafficking;
and two counts of possession with intent to distribute more
than 500 grams of cocaine). Docket No. 1. The drug counts
also carry a rebuttable presumption of detention.
conclusion of the detention hearing, the magistrate judge
found that the defendant had failed to rebut the presumption
of detention and also found, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the defendant was a flight risk and, by clear
and convincing evidence, that the defendant would be a ...