Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01297/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED .,.,, 

U "ted States Court oi Appt:l UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS m Tent'h C!rcuit, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DONALD AUSTIN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 2 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1297 

(D.C. No. 91-CR-147) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, 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 the district court 

imposing restrictive terms and conditions for his release on bond 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 3142(a),(c). Initially, the magistrate 

judge ordered, among other things, that Defendant stay in a 

* 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: 91-1297 Document: 010110092977 Date Filed: 10/29/1991 Page: 1 
community treatment center (CTC) in Boulder, Colorado, on a 

twenty-four hour a day basis, with leave for meetings with counsel 

and court appearances. Following a hearing on Defendant's motion 

for reconsideration, the district court generally reaffirmed the 

conditions imposed but modified the magistrate judge's Order to 

permit Defendant to live at a CTC in Sacramento, California, where 

he resided before his arrest, and to leave the CTC for up to nine 

hours a day for verified employment. R. Vol. I, Doc. 22, district 

court Order filed August 8, 1991. 

Defendant has not filed either an opening memorandum brief, 

due on September 3, 1991, see 10th Cir. R. 9.5.5 (simultaneous 

memoranda due fifteen days after filing of notice of appeal), or a 

reply to the government's brief, due on September 10, 1991, ~ 

id. (reply due five days after service of opposing parties' 

opening memorandum); see also Fed. R. App. P. 26 (weekends and 

holidays not included in computation of prescribed time periods of 

less than seven days). This omission could be deemed a waiver of 

the substance of this appeal, 1 see generally Abercrombie v. City 

of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 1990)(failure to argue 

issue in brief deemed waiver of contention on appeal); Bledsoe v. 

Garcia, 742 F.2d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir. 1984)(same), but, in the 

interests of justice, we elect to review the district court's bail 

order. 

1 Indeed, sometime after this case came at issue, Defendant 

filed a unilateral motion to dismiss the appeal. See generally. 

Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). We exercise our discretion to deny the 

motion. See generally Brookhaven Landscape & Grading Co. v. J.F. 

Barton Contracting Co., 681 F.2d 734, 736 (11th Cir. 1982). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1297 Document: 010110092977 Date Filed: 10/29/1991 Page: 2 
The district court imposed the following conditions on 

Defendant's pretrial release pursuant to 18 u.s.c. 

S 3142(c)(l)(B): 

(1) Execution of a bail bond in the amount of $100,000; 

(2) Residence in CTC, with permission to leave for 

daily employment, meetings with counsel, and court 

appearances; 

(3) Surrender of passport; 

(4) Prohibitions on out-of-state travel, contact with 

alleged victims or potential witnesses, possession 

of firearms, destructive devices, or other 

dangerous weapons, excessive use of alcohol, and 

any unprescribed use or unlawful possession of 

controlled substances; and 

(5) Regular reporting to pretrial services. 

We shall restrict our analysis to the residential limitation, as 

it constitutes the severest restriction on Defendant's liberty and 

was the focus of Defendant's challenge at the July 22, 1991, 

hearing held by the district court on Defendant's motion for 

reconsideration of his release conditions. 

Our review of the release order is plenary as to mixed 

questions of law and fact and independent, though with due 

deference to the district court, as to purely factual findings. 

United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Where, as here, the basis for the detention or conditions imposed 

is risk of flight rather than potential danger to the community, 

the burden of proof to be met by the government is reduced to a 

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Aitken, 898 

F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Medina, 775 F.2d 

1398, 1402 (11th Cir. 1985); cf. 18 u.s.c. § 3142(f)(clear and 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1297 Document: 010110092977 Date Filed: 10/29/1991 Page: 3 
convincing evidence required to support detention on basis of 

danger to community). With these standards in mind, we undertake 

a two-step inquiry to determine whether (1) Defendant presents a 

risk of flight and (2) the conditions imposed reasonably assure 

Defendant's appearance at trial. See United States v. Friedman, 

837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1988). 

The record2 reflects several pertinent considerations 

supporting the conclusion that Defendant is a flight risk. See 

generally 18 u.s.c. S 3142(g)(factors relevant to detention 

determination). Defendant faces the threat of conviction on some 

ninety-five counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, false statement, and 

aiding and abetting set out against him in the grand jury 

indictment, and the weight of the evidence supporting these 

charges was assessed as "high" by the magistrate judge for the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California before whom these detention proceedings began, ~ 

R. Vol. I, Doc. 9, Detention Order of May 2, 1991. There are 

millions of dollars still not accounted for in this case, and 

Defendant allegedly told his (now ex-) wife that he had made 

arrangements to leave the country in the event of prosecution. 

See R. Vol. III (transcript of July 22, 1991, hearing) at 3-4, 11, 

18. Prior to his surprise arrest in April of 1991, Defendant 

obtained false identification documents in California and used 

2 The facts recited above were established by proffer of 

evidence, a proper procedure in detention proceedings. See United 

States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 669 (11th Cir. 1987); United 

States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755, 756 (9th Cir. 1986). 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1297 Document: 010110092977 Date Filed: 10/29/1991 Page: 4 
., 

\ 

these to obtain several mail drops. Id. at 4-6. He also 

purchased a residence in California through a trust arrangement, 

so that his name did not appear on the public records, thereby 

potentially complicating future location by authorities. Id. 

at 7. We conclude that such facts, uncontradicted in substance by 

Defendant at the hearing, were sufficient to warrant the district 

court's consideration of the restrictive "further conditions" on 

pretrial release provided in§ 3142(c)(l)(B). 

Furthermore, we agree with the district court that, in light 

of the circumstances, the release conditions ultimately imposed on 

Defendant are reasonably necessary to assure his continued 

appearance in these proceedings. Indeed, numerous cases 

illustrate reliance on the factors recited above, in various 

combinations and contexts, in support of outright detention under 

S 3142(e). See generally United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 

765 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Jacob, 767 F.2d 505, 507-08 

(8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dellacroce, 613 F. Supp. 312, 

314-15 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 795 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, the order of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. Defendant's Motion to 

Dismiss Appeal is DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1297 Document: 010110092977 Date Filed: 10/29/1991 Page: 5