Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02227/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Antonio Zirate-Martinez
Appellant

Document Text:

• 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UnJted Stat.a a.artot. Appals 

Tenth cimiit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

· p1aintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ANTONIO ZIRATE-MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

NOV 1 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2227 

(D.C. No. 90-394M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and TACHA, 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 appeal is taken from an order of the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mexico vacating a 

magistrate's order which set conditions of release and committing 

.1, . . * This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2227 Document: 010110051318 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 1 
defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pending trial. 

18 u.s.c. S 3142. We have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal 

under 18 u.s.c. S 3145(c). 

Appellate review of detention on release orders is plenary, 

at least as to mixed questions of law and fact, with due deference 

accorded to the trial court's purely factual findings. United 

States v. Cook, 880 F.2d 1158, 1160 (10th Cir. 1989); United 

States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 876 F.2d 826, 380 (10th Cir. 1989), 

rev'd on other grounds, 110 S. Ct. 2072 (1990). Clear and 

convincing evidence is required to support these factual findings. 

18 u.s.c. S 3142(f)(facts judicial officer uses to support section 

3142(e), finding that no condition or combination of conditions 

will reasonably assure safety of any other person and community 

shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence); United 

States v. Miller, 625 F. Supp. 513, 517 (D. Kan. 1985). 

Determination of flight . risk is by a preponderance of the 

evidence. United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 

1988); United States v. McConnell, 842 F.2d 105, 110 (5th Cir. 

1988); United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 n.20 (8th Cir. 

1985)(en bane). 

The district court properly conducted a de nova hearing on 

the magistrate's order. United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 

1481 (8th Cir. 1985)(en bane). The evidence elicited at that 

hearing consisted primarily of portions of the pretrial services 

report. Neither side disputes the material factual statements 

made in the report; the debate centers on the legal significance 

of those facts in this pretrial detention context. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2227 Document: 010110051318 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 2 
Defendant was stopped at a border checkpoint. A subsequent 

search of his vehicle revealed a large quantity of marijuana 

hidden in a propane tank encased in a larger tank. Defendant has 

been now charged by indictment in the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico with violations of 21 u.s.c. 

S 841(a) and (b), possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 

At the time of his arrest, defendant had been released on bond 

pending trial on California state court charges of possession of 

cocaine with intent to sell, transportation of importation of 

cocaine, possession of marijuana for purposes of sale, and 

conspiracy to sell or transport marijuana. Defendant is a legal 

resident of the United States, but a citizen of Mexico. He has 

been married to a United States citizen for two years. His former 

wife, five or six children, and many other family relatives reside 

in Mexico. 

In ordering detention, the trial judge considered the factors 

outlined in 18 u.s.c. S 3142(g). This consideration requires the 

judge to take into account available information concerning--

(!) the nature and circumstances of the offense 

charged, including whether the offense is a crime of 

violence or involves a narcotic drug; 

(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 proceedings; and 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2227 Document: 010110051318 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 3 
(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. In considering the conditions of 

release described in subsection (c)(2)(K) or (c)(2)(L) 

of this section, the judicial officer may upon his own 

motion, or shall upon the motion of the Government, 

conduct an inquiry into the source of the property to be 

designated for potential forfeiture or offered as 

collateral to secure a bond, and shall decline to accept 

he designation, or the use as collateral of property 

that, because of its source, will not reasonably assure 

the appearance of the person as required. 

In this case, the nature and circumstances of the offense as 

well as the nature and seriousness of the danger to the community 

(factors 1 and 4) are easily resolved in favor of the government. 

Defendant argues that the trial court concluded defendant 

poses a danger to the community simply because defendant was 

charged with a drug-related crime in New Mexico. Appellant's 

Memorandum Brief at p. 5. We disagree. The dangerousness 

determination was based on the fact that the current charges were 

filed while defendant was on release pending trial on four other 

drug-related charges. The risk of continued narcotics trafficking 

on bail constitutes a risk to the community. United States v. 

Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Cook, 

880 F.2d at 1161. See also United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 81 

(2d Cir. 1985)(harm to society caused by narcotics trafficking 

comes within congressional definition of danger); United States v. 

Williams, 753 F.2d 329, 335 (4th Cir. 1985)(same). In this case, 

defendant's actions clearly demonstrate a pattern of such 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2227 Document: 010110051318 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 4 
activity. Defendant offered no evidence to suggest he would not 

continue trafficking in drugs. 

In addition, the weight of the evidence against defendant 

(factor 2) is strong, defendant having waived a preliminary 

hearing, and defendant does not argue to the contrary. Finally, 

although defendant has some family ties to the United States 

(factor 3(A)) (although apparently none to the immediate community 

of New Mexico), he was at the time of this arrest on release 

pending trial for an offense under state law (factor 3(B)). 

Defendant does not dispute these determinations. 

Upon review of the briefs and record in this case, we are 

persuaded that the district court did not err in ordering 

defendant detained pending trial. Accordingly, the order of 

detention of the United States District Court for the District of 

New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-2227 Document: 010110051318 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 5