UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MICHAEL L. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 12-4186 & 12-4187 (D.C. Nos. 2:12-CR-00645-TC-2 & 2:12-CR-00502-TC-3) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , HARTZ , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.
Mr. Taylor appeals the district court’ s order of detention, entered in two criminal proceedings that resulted from two separate indictments. The first indictment involves charges related to gove rnment procurement fraud, and the second indictment arose out of Mr. Ta ylor’s attempt to derail the investigation leading to the first indictment and his pros ecution on those charges. The government requested a

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y 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 

### June 10, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), arguing that Mr . Taylor should be detained pending trial. A ma gistrate judge ordered him de tained after a hearing, and Mr. Taylor sought review and revocation of the detention order from the district court. The district court also held a h earing, and, consideri ng the matter de novo, also ordered Mr. Taylor’s dete ntion pending trial. The di strict court found that Mr. Taylor presented a flight ri sk and a danger to the community and that no conditions of release would reasonably assure Mr. Ta ylor’s appearance and the safety of the community. The district court’s decision on pretri al detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 involves mixed questions of law and fact, which we revi ew de novo, as well as findings of historical fact, which we ac cept unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Cisneros , 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10t h Cir. 2003). It is the government’s burden to show by a prepondera nce of the evidence that no combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the defe ndant’s appearance, and to present clear and convincing evidence that there are no release cond itions that would assure community safety. Id. at 616; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). We have reviewed the mate rials filed in this court, 1 as well as the district court filings, and we see no error in the district court’s detention ruling. The government offered ample evidence that Mr. Taylor pres ents a flight risk. We agree with the

1 Mr. Taylor filed a motion for leave to file a reply and submitted the reply brief with the motion. The motion for leave to file the reply is granted.- 3 - district court that a pre ponderance of the evidence indicates that there is no combination of release conditions that would reasonably assu re Mr. Taylor’s appearance as required. We also see no error in the district court’s finding that there are no release conditions that could be imposed on Mr. Tayl or that would assure the safety of the community. The government presented evid ence of the extent to which Mr. Taylor was willing to go to derail the investiga tion and prosecution of the first indictment against him. The district court did not err in relying on this clear and convincing evidence as support for its finding that the safety of the community against further attempts to obstruct justice cannot be assured by conditions of release. Finally, we find no merit to Mr. Taylor’s argument that denial of counsel of his choice and denial of effe ctive assistance of counsel are grounds to reject the district court’s order of pret rial detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Beyond the fact that considerations of legal representa tion play no part in the § 3142 analysis, we note that the district cour t has, in fact, granted all motions for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys of Mr. Tayl or’s choosing so that they may represent him. And a claim of the denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective a ssistance of counsel, with its required showing of prejudice, can be effectively raised and addressed only after the criminal pro ceedings are concluded.- 4 - The order of detention pending trial is affirmed. Although this order and judgment is not filed under se al, all previous orders in this appeal provisionally granting motions to seal various doc uments are hereby made permanent.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam