Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01179/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Esau Ortiz-Orona
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 G 1992 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ESAU ORTIZ-ORONA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECll 8~ 

Clerk 

) No. 92-1179 

) (D.C. No. 92-CR-171-5) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, EBEL, and KELLY, 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. 

Defendant appeals from an order of pretrial detention. 

Defendant was charged by indictment with conspiracy to distribute 

and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of 

* 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: 92-1179 Document: 010110307892 Date Filed: 08/26/1992 Page: 1
cocaine and fifty kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(l), (b)(l)(B)(ii), (b)(l)(C), and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 

Although Defendant was initially released on bond, the government 

filed a motion for revocation of release and motion for stay of 

release pending review by the district court. The district court 

stayed the release order pending a decision on the motion for 

revocation of release. 

The district court held a hearing on the detention issue. 

The government presented witnesses who testified that Defendant is 

a Mexican citizen, he and his family are a threat to the 

witnesses, other defendants have fled, and Defendant also had the 

ability to flee. Defendant presented offers of proof indicating 

that Defendant had not made any actual threats to witnesses and 

that he had had opportunities to flee but had not done so. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ordered 

detention. It determined that the government proved by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant is a flight risk and 

that there was clear and convincing evidence of Defendant's 

dangerousness. 

On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) there are insufficient 

facts to find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant 

presents a threat and (2) because Defendant overcame the 

statutorily imposed presumption in favor of pre-trial detention, 

based on his connections with the community, his work history, and 

his voluntary surrender to government authorities on two separate 

occasions, he should have been admitted to bond. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1179 Document: 010110307892 Date Filed: 08/26/1992 Page: 2
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 the 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. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 

1991). The grand jury indictment is sufficient to establish the 

finding of probable cause that Defendant committed a federal drug 

offense with a maximum prison term of ten years of more. See id. 

After reviewing the district court's detention determination 

de novo, giving due deference to the district court's fact 

findings, see id. at 1355, we conclude Defendant did not 

successfully rebut the presumption of detention. Accordingly, the 

district court correctly ordered that Defendant be detained. 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The government's Motion to 

Allow the Filing of a Second Memorandum Brief is GRANTED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1179 Document: 010110307892 Date Filed: 08/26/1992 Page: 3