United States v. Max Carias Torres ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 23-3062 September Term, 2022
1:23-cr-00073-CKK-4
1:23-cr-00073-CKK-6
Filed On: July 12, 2023
United States of America,
Appellee
v.
Max Alexander Carias Torres, also known as
Max Alexander Carias,
Appellant
------------------------------
Consolidated with 23-3071
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Katsas, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties.
The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.
See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 28, 2023 order
revoking a magistrate judge’s release orders and ordering appellants detained pending
trial be affirmed. Appellants have not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred
by finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure their
appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. See
United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th 449, 454–55 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
In their memoranda of law and fact, appellants do not challenge the district
court’s conclusion that the rebuttable presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(3) applies in these cases, nor do they dispute the district court’s predicate
factual findings or ultimate conclusions under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) with respect to flight
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 23-3062 September Term, 2022
risk and dangerousness. Consequently, they have forfeited any such challenges. See
United States v. Wright, 923 F.3d 183, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2019). And although appellant
Torres challenges in his reply the district court’s characterization of his criminal history,
arguments first raised in reply are forfeited absent extraordinary circumstances, which
are not present here. See United States v. Whren, 111 F.3d 956, 958 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Instead, appellants challenge the expedited procedures employed by the district
court on review of the magistrate judge’s release orders. However, appellants have not
identified—in either this court or in district court—any additional evidence they would
have presented or arguments they would have raised had they been given a chance to
do so. Consequently, any error here was harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (“Any
error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be
disregarded.”).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Page 2