Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04134/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

" FILED 

United States Co~ C?i Appeals Tenth Circu\t UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OCT O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JORGE LOPEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-4134 

) (D.C. No. 91-CR-132-S) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court which 

revoked a previous order of pretrial release and ordered detention 

prior to trial. 

* 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: 91-4134 Document: 010110090752 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant was charged by indictment in the District of Utah 

with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and distribution 

of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. 

The Defendant was arrested in California. The government 

apparently sought an order of pretrial detention pursuant to 18 

u.s.c. § 3142(e) and expressly invoked the presumption of 

detention based on the serious drug charge. After several 

hearings, the magistrate judge apparently concluded that Defendant 

had successfully rebutted the presumption of § 3142(e), and 

ordered release upon the posting of a $320,000 bond. 

Defendant posted bond and appeared as scheduled in the 

District of Utah where the government immediately sought an order 

revoking release. The magistrate judge in Utah declined to revoke 

detention for reasons not relevant here, but amended the 

conditions of release. 

The government promptly sought review of the order of release 

under 18 u.s.c. § 3145(a). The Defendant took the position that 

any challenge of the release order issued by the California 

magistrate judge should have been brought in the California court. 

At the hearing, the government made an uncontroverted showing 

that Defendant was a citizen of the Republic of Mexico, frequently 

traveled there, Defendant's family members resided there, and the 

amount of cocaine involved was substantial. Further, if convicted 

as charged, Defendant faced a mandatory twenty~year minimum 

sentence. 

On July 29, 1991, the district court entered its final order 

revoking the order of release and ordering pretrial detention. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-4134 Document: 010110090752 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 2 
On August 14, 1991, the district court entered a supplemental 

order which ratified the July 29 order. Defendant's Notice of 

Appeal, specifically from the August 14 order was filed on 

August 20, 1991. 

Under § 3142(e), upon a finding of probable cause that the 

Defendant has committed a federal drug offense carrying a maximum 

prison term of ten years or more, a rebuttable presumption arises 

that no conditions of release will assure Defendant's appearance 

and the safety of the community. The burden of production then 

shifts to the Defendant. However, the burden of persuasion 

regarding risk of flight and the danger to the community always 

remains with the government. The Defendant's burden of production 

is not heavy, but some evidence must be produced. Even if a 

Defendant's burden of production is met, the presumption remains a 

factor for consideration by the district court in determining 

whether to release or detain. United States v. Stricklin, 932 

F.2d 1353 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Appellate review of detention or release orders is plenary, 

as to mixed questions of law and fact, and independent, with due 

deference to the district court's purely factual findings. United 

States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 876 F.2d 826, 830 (10th Cir. 1989), 

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

Here the grand jury indictment of Defendant was sufficient to 

establish a finding of probable cause that he had committed a 

federal drug offense carrying a maximum prison term of ten years 

or more. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4134 Document: 010110090752 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 3 
The presumption of§ 3142(e) was properly invoked by the 

government. The government's offers of proof regarding 

Defendant's background and other factors relating to the risk of 

flight were more than sufficient to support the district court's 

finding that the government had met its burden of persuasion. 

Finally, there is no question that the district court, was the 

court of original jurisdiction over the offense and consequently 

had jurisdiction to review the California magistrate judge's 

release order. See 18 u.s.c. § 3145(a) ._ 

The government sharply challenges the appellate jurisdiction 

of this court. It is the government's position that Defendant's 

Notice of Appeal was filed beyond 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 

the time allowed by 

The district court's final judgment, which fully adjudicated 

Defendant's custody status, was entered on July 29, 1991. The 

ten-day appeal period prescribed by Rule 4(b) expired on August 8. 

Defendant's Notice of Appeal was not filed until August 20 which 

was twenty-two days after the entry of the final judgment. The 

August 14 order was not a final judgment. It simply ratified the 

district court's earlier order. It is well established that 

appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the absence of a 

timely Notice of Appeal. Here, the Notice of Appeal was untimely. 

Consequently, this court does not have jurisdiction. 

The appeal is dismissed. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 91-4134 Document: 010110090752 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 4