UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JONATHON SVEN VOOG, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-4082 (D.C. No. 2:17-CR-00236-TS-1) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , MATHESON , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendant Jonathon Sven Vo og appeals the district co urt’s order of detention pending trial. We have ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), and we affirm.
I. On March 3, 2017, police stopped Mr. Voog for a traffic violation in Washington City, Utah. He gave the police a false name and date of birth. Officers searched the vehicle and found Mr. Voog’s id entification, a firearm, and drug-related

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 21, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 items. He was subsequently charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and three counts of unlawful possession of a controlled subs tance (methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). A magistrate judge held a detention hearing, and then ordered Mr. Voog detained pending trial. Mr. Voog filed a motion to have the district court judge review the detention order. The district court held another hearing, and then determined on de novo review that Mr. Vo og should be detained pending trial. Mr. Voog now appeals from that decision.
II. Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant must be detained pending trial if a judicial officer finds that “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the pers on as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142( e). In making this determination, the court must consider th e following factors: (1) [T]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense . . . involves . . . a controlled substance [or] firearm . . . (2) the weight of the ev idence against the person; (3) the history of the characteristics of the person, incl uding—(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, fa mily ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or al cohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (B) whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, St ate, or local law; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release . . . .3 Id . § 3142(g). The district court considered the eviden ce and the relevant factors. The court found that the nature and ci rcumstances of the offenses charged weighed in favor of detention because the charged offenses are “serious offe nses involving firearms and controlled substances.” Aple e. Supp. App. at 21. The court also found the second factor weighed in favor of detention. Th e court noted that the indictment provides probable cause that Mr. Voog committed th e offenses, and further noted that the “evidence, while circumstan tial, appears strong.” Id

. Next, the court considered the defendant ’s history and characteristics. The court observed that “Mr. Voog is a 34 y ear old man with a significant criminal history,” noting that “his prio r history is similar to that charged in the instant case, namely the illegal possession of weapons and narcotics.” Id . The court further observed that Mr. Voog is unemployed, homel ess, and has a long hi story of substance abuse. Finally, the court found that Mr . Voog has a history of non-appearance and non-compliance, noting “arrests for contem pt of court, obstruction of justice, providing false information, and giving fa lse personal identity to an officer.” Id

. at 22. The court determined that “[t]hese charges call into question [Mr. Voog’s] credibility, including whether [he] woul d comply with release conditions” and concluded that all of the a bove considerations weighed in favor of detention. Id

. As for the final factor—the nature a nd seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by th e defendant’s release—the district court found that “[f]or many of th e same reasons set forth abov e, this factor weighs in4 favor of detention.” Id . Given all of these consid erations, the court found that Mr. Voog “poses a risk of fli ght and detention is required to assure the safety of any other person and the community.” Id

. We review de novo mixed questions of law and fact concerning the detention decision. United States v. Cisneros , 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Id

. On appeal, Mr. Voog does not assert a sp ecific procedural, factual, or legal error in the district court’ s disposition. Instead, he goes through the factors and offers his own analysis of how the evidence should be weighed. He concedes that the nature and circumstances of his offenses “will generally weigh . . . in favor of detention.” Aplt. Memo. Br. at 1. For th e second factor, he argues that the evidence against him is circumstantial. For the third factor, he adm its that he has a history of methamphetamine addiction, he is unemployed, and he is homeless, but he asserts without citing any record support that “h e does have the ability to obtain both employment and safe housing imme diately upon being released.” Id . at 2. Finally, with respect to whether he is a danger to the community, he argues that he “has no history of violence and his enti re drug history is that of a ddiction. When he is not partaking of methamphetamine he is a functioning member of society.” Id

. Mr. Voog’s current charges involve both drugs and firearms, and he has a long criminal history of being convicted for offe nses involving drugs a nd firearms. He is addicted to methamphetamine, admitting that he was using the drug daily at the time of his arrest. “The concern about safety [of the community] is to be given a broader5 construction than the mere danger of physi cal violence. Safety of the community refers to the danger that the defendant mi ght engage in criminal activity to the detriment of the community.” United States v. Cook , 880 F.2d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Voog’s penchant for combining firearms and drugs demonstrates that he is a danger to the community. Our de novo review of the record re veals no error in the district court’s consideration of the statutory factors or the weight it accord ed the factors. Accordingly, we affirm the di strict court’s order detaining Mr. Voog pending trial.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam