Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01276/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

•1 

# F I L E Df A 9'\tln,ln United States Co~<? Pt-- a Tent.'i C1rcu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SE? 0 4 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RONALD MORALES, also known as Shorty 

Morales, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-1276 

) (D.C. No. 91-CR-44) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, and MOORE, 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 from an order of pretrial detention. 

Defendant was initially charged by indictment with conspiracy to 

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute over 1000 

* 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: 91-1276 Document: 010110084278 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 1 
, 

kilograms of marijuana. The government seasonably sought an order 

of pretrial detention pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3142(e). The 

presumption of detention was expressly invoked. 

Proceeding on offers of proof, the government showed that 

defendant had been a fugitive from justice for at least ten years, 

was currently under indictment in another district, was in the 

possession of false identification (using two different aliases), 

had $32,000 in currency in his possession at the time of the 

arrest, and attempted to flee arresting officers. 

In rebuttal, defendant showed only that his friends and 

family were willing to post a substantial property bond in return 

for his release. Defendant did not controvert the government's 

factual showing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate 

judge found by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had 

been a long-time fugitive, possessed false identification in at 

least two other names, some of the identification was from the 

Republic of Mexico, and that defendant attempted to flee arresting 

officers. The magistrate judge determined that defendant was an 

extreme flight risk and would not remain for trial. 

Subsequently, defendant sought revocation of the detention 

order indicating that, again, friends and family would be willing 

to post a substantial bond, and, in addition, defendant would 

subject himself to electronic monitoring, frequent contacts with 

pretrial services, and residence in a halfway house. 

After hearing, the district court declined to revoke the 

order of detention. This appeal followed. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1276 Document: 010110084278 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 2 
On appeal, defendant argues that the presumption of detention 

was successfully rebutted and that the government failed in its 

burden of persuasion. 

The operation of the detention presumption provision of 

section 3142(e) is set out in our decision in United States v. 

Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353 (10th Cir. 1991). Appellate review of 

detention orders is plenary as to mixed questions of law or fact 

and independent with due deference to the district court's purely 

factual findings. United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 876 F.2d 

826, 830 (10th Cir. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 110 S. Ct. 2072 

(1990). Here the grand jury's indictment of Mr. Morales was 

sufficient to establish a finding of probable cause that he had 

committed a federal drug offense carrying a maximum prison term of 

ten years or more. We conclude that the detention presumption of 

section 3142(e) was properly invoked by the government. Further, 

we conclude that the government's evidentiary 

sufficient to meet its burden of persuasion. 

showing was 

Accordingly, the order of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1276 Document: 010110084278 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 3