Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-03262/USCOURTS-ca10-14-03262-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellant
Rito Vasquez-Garcia
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff − Appellant, 

v. 

RITO VASQUEZ−GARCIA, a/k/a Rito 

Vasquez, a/k/a Rito Vasquez, Sr., a/k/a 

Rito G. Vasquez, 

 Defendant − Appellee. 

No. 14-3262 

(D.C. No. 5:10-CR-40014-JTM-1) 

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

 

 The United States appeals from the district court’s order releasing 

Rito Vasquez-Garcia from detention pending trial on charges that he participated in a 

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and used a communication facility in aid 

of that conspiracy. The parties have informed the court that the release order, issued 

on November 24, 2014, has not been executed, and that Mr. Vasquez-Garcia remains 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

in pretrial custody pending this appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3145 and 3731, we affirm the release order. 

Background 

 Mr. Vasquez-Garcia is a citizen of Mexico and, for many years, a legal 

permanent resident of the United States. Along with several other persons, he was 

charged with participating in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. While the 

other defendants’ cases were pending, he was in Mexico for some three years. 

During that time, his green card expired. He voluntarily returned to the United States 

in 2012. In August 2012, after a hearing, a magistrate judge denied pretrial release, 

primarily based on a perception of a serious flight risk. 

 More than two years later, in September 2014, Mr. Vasquez-Garcia sought 

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order. Applying de novo review, the 

district court held another hearing and again denied pretrial release, this time based 

not on concern about flight, but on concern about the safety of other persons and the 

community due to threats made to witnesses in the other defendants’ trials. The court 

also was concerned about Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s lack of regular employment and 

financial resources. In denying release, however, the court stated that it might 

reconsider if Mr. Vasquez-Garcia presented (1) assurance of some employment and 

(2) information to negate or rebut the information about the threats in the other trials. 

 Mr. Vasquez-Garcia renewed his motion, discussing the threats and submitting 

to the court several letters offering him employment. The court convened another 

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

hearing on November 24, 2014. At that hearing, the court reconsidered its decision 

and ordered him released pending trial, under conditions. The United States appeals. 

As stated, Mr. Vasquez-Garcia has remained in pretrial custody pending the appeal. 

Analysis 

I. Legal Background and Standard of Review 

 18 U.S.C. § 3142 addresses pretrial release. A court may order the defendant 

be released pending trial. See id. § 3142(b), (c). But if, after a hearing, the court 

“finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the 

appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the 

community,” the court may order the defendant be detained pending trial. 

Id. § 3142(e)(1). The factors relevant to considering conditions of release are: 

“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged”; (2) the weight of the 

evidence; (3) the person’s history and characteristics; and “(4) the nature and 

seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the 

person’s release.” Id. § 3142(g). 

 In this case, the charges against Mr. Vasquez-Garcia establish a rebuttable 

presumption that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure 

the safety of any other person and the safety of the community.” Id. § 3142(e)(3)(A). 

It is his burden to produce evidence to rebut the presumption. See United States v. 

Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991). “However, the burden of 

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

persuasion regarding risk-of-flight and danger to the community always remains with 

the government.” Id.

 Determining whether the district court erred in ordering pretrial release 

“involves questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact. We apply de novo 

review to mixed questions of law and fact concerning the . . . . release decision, but 

we accept the district court’s findings of historical fact which support that decision 

unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 

(10th Cir. 2003). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to 

support it, the reviewing court, on review of the entire record, is left with the definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Gilgert, 

314 F.3d 506, 515 (10th Cir. 2002) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice 

between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 

470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). “On clear error review, our role is not to re-weigh the 

evidence; rather, our review of the district court’s finding is significantly 

deferential.” Gilgert, 314 F.3d at 515-16 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

II. Discussion 

 On appeal, the United States argues the district court erroneously: 

(1) concluded that Mr. Vasquez-Garcia did not pose a risk of flight; (2) assumed that 

he could obtain lawful employment in this country; and (3) concluded that he did not 

pose a danger to potential witnesses. Accordingly, the United States asserts, the 

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

district court erred in holding that the conditions of release it ordered were sufficient 

to reasonably assure Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s appearance at trial and the safety of the 

community. 

 First, the United States asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding 

little flight risk. It points to various aspects of Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s history and 

characteristics, such as his Mexican citizenship, his ties to Mexico, and his multi-year 

residence in Mexico during other defendants’ proceedings. But this argument merely 

invites us to reweigh the evidence of flight risk, which we do not do on clear-error 

review. See Gilgert, 314 F.3d at 515-16. Other evidence supports the district court’s 

decision, particularly Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s voluntary return to the United States in 

2012 knowing that he was under indictment and his ties to Kansas. Given that the 

district court chose between conflicting views of the evidence, we cannot conclude 

that the flight-risk determination was clearly erroneous. 

 Second, the United States asserts that the district court erred in assuming that 

Mr. Vasquez-Garcia could legally work in this country. It states that he cannot 

legally work because he does not have a green card. But the district court also had 

before it information that Mr. Vasquez-Garcia was eligible to renew his green card 

and that many of the required steps toward such renewal already had been completed. 

Accordingly, we do not find any error here to be of a magnitude to compel reversal. 

 Finally, the United States argues that the district court erred in concluding that 

Mr. Vasquez-Garcia did not pose a significant threat to potential witnesses. Again, 

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

the government’s argument on this point invites us to reweigh the evidence. The 

record, however, does not leave us with a “the definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed.” Id. at 515 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. Conclusion 

 The district court’s decision is affirmed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 14-3262 Document: 01019370133 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 6