United States v. Gutierrez Vergara ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA F l L E D
    )
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) APR 3 0 2009
    ) NANcYMAYEa wmmocrou.cl.£m<
    ) U.S. DISTR|CTCO\HT
    )
    v. )
    )
    LUZ MERY GU'I``IERREZ VERGARA ) CRIMINAL NO. 07-248-5
    )
    )
    Defendant. )
    )
    MEMORANDUM & ORDER
    Defendant Luz Mery Gutierrez Vergara is charged in a multi-count indictment with
    conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and with providing
    material support to a foreign terrorist organization in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2339
    (B)(a)(l).
    Now before the Court is the government’s oral motion to hold defendant Gutierrez Vergara
    without bond pending trial. The Court conducted a hearing on the matter on April 29, 2009. At
    the hearing, the defendant stated that she took no position on detention. Upon consideration of
    the oral motion, the government’s proffer of evidence, and the lack of any opposition, the Court
    finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the
    community were the defendant to be released. See l8 U.S.C. § 3 l42(e). Accordingly, the
    government’s motion is GRANTED and the Court ORDERS that the defendant be detained
    without bond pending trial.
    I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER AND EVIDENCE
    At the April 29, 2009 hearing, the government made the following factual proffer:
    In and around 2005, defendant Gutierrez Vergara was involved in providing material
    support to the FARC’ (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Specifically, Gutierrez
    Vergara provided advanced communications networks and satellite telephones to members of the
    FARC, knowing that the communications networks would be used to further the terrorist
    organization. Gutierrez Vergara also owned and operated a call center that was used to by other
    coconspirators and members of the FARC. Gutierrez Vergara often assisted these individuals in
    their communications, knowing that they were being made to further the terrorist organization.
    II. DISCUSSION
    The Bail Reform Act, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3141
     et seq., dictates that a defendant may be detained
    pending trial where the government carries its burden of establishing "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." 
    Id.
     at § 3 l42(e), (f). The government first
    must establish one of the predicates: (1) that, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, defendant
    poses a risk of flight, United States v. Xulam, 
    84 F.3d 441
    , 443 (D.C. Cir. 1996); or (2) that, by
    clear and convincing evidence, defendant has been shown to pose a risk to the safety of any
    person or the community. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3142
    (f); United States v. Peralta, 
    849 F.2d 625
    , 626
    (D.C. Cir. 1988). The court must then determine that the same evidence leads to the conclusion
    that no condition or conditions of release will reasonably protect against the risk that has been
    found. Among the factors a court should consider are "the nature and circumstances of the
    ‘FARC is derived from the Spanish name Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia
    and is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States Department of State.
    2
    offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence," whether the offense
    involved a firearm, and several other factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(g)(l). Courts also should
    consider the weight of evidence against the defendant, the history and characteristics of the
    defendant, and the nature and magnitude of the danger to the community or individual persons if
    the defendant should be released. Id. at § 3142(g)(2)-(4).
    A. Danger to the Community
    The govemment has carried its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,
    that defendant Gutierrez Vergara is a danger to the community.
    First, the Court examines the nature and circumstances of the offense. The offense is
    serious, and carries a maximum tenn of imprisonment of ten years or more. According1y, the
    defendant is subject to a statutory presumption that she is a danger to the community. See 18
    U.S.C. 3 l42(f)(l)(C). The weight of the evidence against the defendant is strong. The
    government has recorded telephone calls in which the defendant is heard speaking with
    coconspirators and discussing the conspiracy in coded language. The government also has
    witnesses willing to testify against the defendant, and the witness has been identified by law
    enforcement agents as the individual heard on the calls. In addition, the defendant did not proffer
    any characteristics that would weigh in favor of her release.
    After considering that the alleged offense is serious and that the government’s evidence is
    strong, the Court concludes that Gutierrez Vergara’s release would pose an unreasonable danger
    to the community despite any conditions that could be placed on her during her release.
    B. Risk of F light
    The Court has also determined that, by a preponderance of evidence, Gutierrez Vergara is
    a risk of flight. She is not a United States citizen, has extensive foreign ties, and has
    communications expertise.
    III. CONCLUSION
    After consideration of the proffered evidence and the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3142
    (g), the Court finds that detention of the defendant is appropriate pending trial. The Court
    finds that the defendant’s release, under any conditions, would pose an unreasonable danger to
    the community and a risk of flight. Accordingly, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the government’s motion for detention pending trial is GRANTED; it is
    further
    ORDERED that the defendant continue to be detained without bond; it is further
    ORDERED that defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private
    consultation with counsel.
    SO ORDERED
    @,< c-  f//®¢>/v?
    Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth Date
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Criminal No. 2007-0248

Judges: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

Filed Date: 4/30/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014