Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02229/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mauro Mendoza
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

; 

UNITED sTATEs coURT oF APPEALS 1._¥8 I L L J.) Un -.. tates Court of Appeal, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tentb Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MAURO MENDOZA, .. 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D. C. 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-2229 

No. CR 92-00402-JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal by the United States from an order of 

pretrial release. Defendant-appellee stands charged by indictment 

with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 

* 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: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 1 
five kilograms of cocaine and possession of more than five 

kilograms of cocaine. 

As we understand the underlying circumstances, a tractor 

trailer was stopped and searched at a border patrol check point. 

During the search, a large quantity (1,291 kilograms) of cocaine 

was found concealed in a load of produce. The driver of the truck 

was allowed to proceed on his way in order to make a controlled 

delivery at a certain place in New Jersey. Upon arrival, arrests 

were made and the truck seized. 

After learning 

ownership of the 

of the those events, defendant, claiming 

truck, apparently approached law enforcement 

officials in an effort to obtain its return. The outcome of those 

efforts is not revealed in the record. Approximately seven months 

after the arrests of the principal participants in the drug 

smuggling scheme, the grand jury in the District of New Mexico 

returned the indictment charging defendant with the offenses. 

After his arrest in El Paso, Texas, defendant was ordered 

detained by magistrate judges both in the Western District of 

Texas and, after removal, the District of New Mexico. Although it 

is not entirely clear, it appears that the government invoked the 

presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). 

The defendant sought review of the orders of detention. On 

October 6, 1992, the district court conducted an evidentiary 

hearing, which proceeded on offers of proof, documentary evidence, 

and live testimony. 

For almost eight 

United States citizen. 

years 

He lives 

defendant 

with his 

2 

has been a naturalized 

family in El Paso, 

Appellate Case: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 2 
, 

f 

Texas, and owns a home there. Defendant lives with his second 

wife and her two children, which he has adopted. In addition, 

defendant has (and supports) two children by a first marriage. 

All children are United States citizens. Defendant's version of 

the story is that he merely loaned his truck to a key participant 

in the scheme in exchange for rental at $1.10 per mile. There was 

no indication that defendant has a criminal or arrest record. 

The government's evidence consisted of testimony by a law 

enforcement officer, who summarized an investigative report which 

included information furnished by a confidential informant. That 

report indicated that defendant was to be paid $20,000 for the use 

of his truck upon arrival in New Jersey, and that he had assisted 

in loading. In addition, it was claimed by the government witness 

that defendant had been seen at the home of the apparent organizer 

during the evening prior to the day the truck was stopped at the 

border patrol check point. The district court read, in camera, 

the full text of the report. 

The veracity of that information was challenged by defendant 

who claimed that the confidential informant was the organizer of 

the drug smuggling scheme who would say anything to obtain 

favorable sentencing treatment. 

At the end of the hearing, the district court found that 

defendant was not a risk of flight due to his long residence in El 

Paso. Also, defendant was found not to be a danger to the 

community. 

The district court ordered release on certain conditions, 

which included posting of bond (secured by defendant's residence 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 3 
and the residence of his father-in-law), restrictions on travel, 

weekly reporting, electronic monitoring, and the like. 

Unfortunately, the district court's order of release was not 

reduced to writing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(h). The government 

promptly sought and was granted a stay of the release order. 

Subsequently, the defendant sought to have the stay granted on 

October 19, 1992, vacated. That motion has apparently not been 

acted upon. 

On appeal, the government argues that the statutory 

presumption of detention was correctly invoked, and that the 

burden of persuasion had been met. Under 18 U.S.C. § 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. Once the presumption is invoked, the burden of 

production shifts to defendant. However, the burden of persuasion 

regarding risk of flight and 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. Strickland, 932 

F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Here, the grand jury indictment of defendant was sufficient 

to establish a finding of probable cause that defendant had 

committed a federal drug offense carrying a maximum prison term of 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 4 
I 

ten years or more. We assume that the presumption was properly 

invoked. Next, the burden of production shifted to the defendant. 

Here, the showing by defendant, if believed, is adequate to 

indicate that his actions could have an innocent explanation. 

Specifically, it was defendant's claim that his truck was loaned 

for ordinary, commercial purposes. Further, if defendant had 

guilty knowledge of and criminal participation in the underlying 

scheme, he probably would not have made repeated efforts to obtain 

return of the truck after it had been seized and other 

participants arrested. Presumably, he knew and understood that 

those participants would be available to testify against him if he 

had been criminally involved in the underlying scheme. Finally, 

there is clear evidence of defendant's strong family ties in the 

United States, significant residence here, and an absence of prior 

criminal record. In its brief, the government alleges that 

defendant has family ties and business dealings in Mexico. 

However, that was not shown during the evidentiary hearing. 

The principal thrust of the government's evidence during the 

October 6 hearing was to show that defendant had both guilty 

knowledge of and criminal participation in the underlying scheme. 

However, that information was obtained mainly from debriefing 

statement of a confidential information, who may have been a major 

participant in the underlying scheme. There was scant evidence to 

support the government's claim that defendant is either a risk of 

flight or danger to the community if released. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 5 
From this we conclude that the government failed to meet its 

burden of persuasion, and that the district court's determination 

to release on conditions was correct. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. Further, the matter 

is remanded to the district court to determine whether the stay 

entered on October 19, 1992, should be vacated. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-2229 Document: 010110149221 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 6