Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02172/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Meraz Pinedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

( 

' ·. FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tench Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ SEP 2 '~ 1990 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk .. 

v. ) No. 90-2172 

) (D.C. No. CR-90-00349) 

ENRIQUE MERAZ PINEDO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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 is an appeal from an order of pre-trial detention 

entered by the district court following de novo review of a prior 

order of release issued by the United States magistrate. 

Defendant-appellant stands charged by indictment with 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than one 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2172 Document: 010110053437 Date Filed: 09/24/1990 Page: 1 
,. 

{ 

hundred kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 846 and 

21 U.S.C. SS 841(a)(l) and 84l(b)(l)(B) • 

. _-, ...... , .... . •. . The evidence showed : that defendant was arrested in. N~w.'"" XEpci~,9~--

during the culmination of a transaction in which he and others 

attempted to purchase approximately nine hundred and sixty pounds 

of marijuana from undercover law enforcement officers in exchange 

for approximately $480,000. The evidence also showed that 

defendant had a substantial organizational role in the enterprise. 

He negotiated numerous details of the transaction, including the 

amount of marijuana to be purchased and the amount paid for it. 

Further, he was at the scene of the transaction. 

Defendant has suffered at least one prior conviction for drug 

trafficking and had been released from parole only three months 

prior to his arrest for the underlying offense. Further, 

defendant had pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense in the District 

of Arizona and would have begun serving the sentence imposed for 

that crime had it not been for his arrest in New Mexico. 

Under 18 u.s.c. § 3142(e), there is a presumption that no 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant's 

appearance and the safety of the community when there is probable 

cause to believe that defendant has committed a federal drug 

offense carrying a maximum prison term of ten years or more. 

In this case, the charged offense carries a minimum prison 

term of five years and a maximum of forty years. The presumption 

of section 3142(e) imposes a burden of production on the 

defendant. However, the burden of persuasion regarding 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2172 Document: 010110053437 Date Filed: 09/24/1990 Page: 2 
' I 

• 

risk-of-flight and danger to the community remains with the 

government. 

The district court found that defendant had established by 

clear and convincing evidence that he was not a risk-of-flight. 

However, the district court determined that defendant was a danger 

to the community, and that no conditions of release would 

reasonably assure the safety of the community. 

Appellate review of detention or release orders is plenary, 

at least as to mixed questions of fact or law and independent with 

due deference to the trial court's purely factual findings. 

United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 876 F.2d 826, 830 (10th Cir. 

1989), vacated on other grounds, 110 S. Ct. 2072 (1990). 

Here, evidence of the large of amount of contraband involved, 

defendant's prior involvement with drug trafficking, and his 

organizational role in the underlying offense was sufficient to 

meet the government's burden of persuasion. Defendant's evidence 

was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of section 

3142(e). 

We conclude that the detention order should stand. 

Accordingly, the "judgment of the United States District Court for 

the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURI.AM 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2172 Document: 010110053437 Date Filed: 09/24/1990 Page: 3