Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02004/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harry Greenspan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

United States Coμrt ~ Appea~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circutt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JAN 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appel lee, 

v. 

HARRY GREENSPAN, aka Alfred A. Lugo, 

aka Alfred Anthony Lugo, aka 

Alex Lugo, aka Alex Stone, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 93-2004 

) (D.C. No. CR-92-508-JC) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter comes before the court on defendant's appeal from 

the district court's order of detention pending trial. After 

conducting a de novo hearing, the district court found that 

defendant had not rebutted the presumption created by 18 u.s.c. 

* 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: 93-2004 Document: 010110157330 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 1 
§ 3142 {e ) that 

assure the 

community. 

no combination of conditions would reasonably 

appearance of defendant and the safety of the 

Defendant argues on appeal that the presumption arising under 

18 U.S.C. § 3142 {e) should not be invoked because a precondition 

to application of the presumption is that the maximum sentence for 

the charged offense be at least ten years, and defendant argues 

that the evidence will show that the weight of the controlled 

substance in his possession was less than the amount which would 

subject him to a ten-year maximum sentence. Defendant is, in 

essence, challenging the adequacy of the evidence supporting the 

indictment. We are not required, however, to determine the 

adequacy or competency of the evidence upon which the indictment 

is based before trial. Costello v . United States, 350 U.S. 359, 

363 (1956). If an indictment is returned by a legally constituted 

and unbiased grand jury and is valid on its face, that is enough 

to call for trial of the charge on the merits. Id.; see also 

United States v . Addington, 471 F.2d 560, 568 {10th Cir. 1973). 

The application of the § 3142(e} rebuttable presumption is 

appropriate in this case. 

Our review of a detention order is plenary with regard to 

mixed questions of law and fact, and we review purely factual 

findings independently, with due deference to the district court. 

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

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with the district court 

that defendant did not present evidence sufficient to rebut the 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-2004 Document: 010110157330 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 2 
presumption that there is no set of conditions which would 

reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community. 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-2004 Document: 010110157330 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 3