United States v. Sanchez-Badillo , 81 F. App'x 360 ( 2003 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1944
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DAVID SANCHEZ-BADILLO,
Defendant, Appellant.
_____________________
No. 03-1945
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO TOMAS MURIEL-CASTILLO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Lipez and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Jose R. Franco on brief for appellants.
H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Sonia I. Torres-Pabon,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 2, 2003
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and record
in these consolidated appeals, we affirm the pre-trial detention
orders for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
Our review is independent, tempered by a degree of deference
to the determination below. United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880(1st Cir. 1990). The appellants essentially argue that since the
government's case rested upon hearsay, it failed to prove the need
for detention by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the
rules of admissibility for criminal trials do not apply to
detention hearings. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); United States v. Acevedo-
Ramos, 755 F.2d 203 (1st Cir. 1985). More importantly, the
appellants' indictments sufficed to trigger a rebuttable
presumption in favor of detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e); United
States v. Vargas, 804 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1986). As the district
court ruled, the appellants failed to satisfy their burden of
production by presenting some evidence that they do not endanger
the community. Finally, even if they had discharged their burden,
the weight of the incriminating evidence is just one factor in the
analysis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); United States v. Palmer-Contreras,
835 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1987). The appellants are charged with
serious crimes involving large amounts of drugs, and the record
shows that they have the contacts and resources to flee.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).