United States v. Garcia-Flores

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 25 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-2004
(D.C. No. CR 96-610-BB)
LUIS GARCIA-FLORES, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant appeals the district court’s order of pretrial detention entered
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Defendant has been charged with importation of
narcotics, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and
conspiracy to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a),
and 963. The district court found that no condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably assure defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community
if he were released pending trial. We review this determination de novo, but
accept the district court’s underlying findings of historical fact, unless they are
clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kinslow, No. 96-7124, 1997 WL 22507,
at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 22, 1997).
The presumption of detention contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) applies
here. Even assuming that defendant produced sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption, the presumption remains a factor for consideration by the district
court in determining whether to release or detain. See United States v. Stricklin,
932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991).
In determining whether any condition or combination of conditions would
reasonably assure defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community, the
court must consider the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that these factors weigh decisively against the
defendant. Defendant is charged with offenses involving the importation of over
-2-
five hundred pounds of marijuana. The evidence concerning his participation in
these offenses is strong. At the time he committed the offenses, he was on
probation in California for a juvenile offense and had already violated his
probation on several occasions, including a violation for failure to stay home
when he was placed under house arrest, and a separate conviction for giving false
information to a police officer. Additionally, one of the terms of his probation
was that he not associate with Adrian Santana. Mr. Santana is his co-defendant in
the present offenses. We find no error in the district court’s finding that no
condition or combination of conditions, under these circumstances, will
reasonably assure defendant’s appearance at trial and the safety of the community.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order of detention.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-3-