UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-168-01-PB

Jesus Lopez

O R D E R

On March 21, 2011, defendant appeared for a Aprobable cause@

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on four alleged violations 

of conditions of supervision. Defendant stipulated to probable 

cause on the violations. I therefore find probable cause that 

defendant has violated the conditions as charged in the 

petition. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. Based on the evidence 

presented at today's hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant has failed to meet his burden of persuading 

the court that his release poses no danger to any other person 

or to the community. 

The court stated on the record its reasons for detaining 

defendant. Those reasons are summarized below:

Case 1:06-cr-00168-PB Document 18 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 4
2

On or about February 28, 2011, while on supervised 

release, defendant was arrested for violating a 

restraining order and for stalking. The alleged 

victim, Ms. Sanchez, is defendant's former girlfriend. 

After being released on bail on those state charges, 

defendant has continued to make both direct and 

indirect contact with Ms. Sanchez.

Daniel Gildea, defendant's supervising officer, has 

spoken directly with Ms. Sanchez, whom he found 

credible. Ms. Sanchez stated that she is in fear of 

defendant, and she told Mr. Gildea that he continues 

to make telephone calls to her despite the restraining 

order. Ms. Sanchez reported to Mr. Gildea that calls 

to her from defendant occurred as recently as March 

20, 2011. Ms. Sanchez explained that she is familiar 

with defendant and recognized his voice during each of 

his telephone calls to her.

Prior to March 20, 2011, Mr. Gildea made clear to 

defendant (on four separate occasions) that he was not 

to engage in either direct or indirect contact with 

Ms. Sanchez (his former girlfriend and the alleged 

victim in the underlying domestic case). Mr. Gildea 

explained to defendant that he could not use texting 

or social networks (such as Facebook) to communicate 

Case 1:06-cr-00168-PB Document 18 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 4
3

even indirectly with Ms. Sanchez. Despite Mr. 

Gildea's clear instructions, it is undisputed that 

defendant used Facebook to communicate with an 

individual close to Ms. Sanchez. Defendant's 

communications are grotesque in nature and contain a 

tone of jealous anger due to the fact that Ms. Sanchez 

has a new boyfriend.

Mr. Sanchez's current boyfriend has directed angry 

communications toward defendant. The court is 

troubled by the escalating nature of the hostility

between defendant and Ms. Sanchez's boyfriend, and the 

timing of the recent (March 19, 2011) vandalism of Ms. 

Sanchez's boyfriend's car. 

Defendant has a criminal history of domestic violence. 

Of particular concern to the court are his 2004 

convictions for stalking and criminal threatening, 

which occurred while he was on parole for an armed 

robbery conviction.

The court considered electronic monitoring and home 

detention as possible conditions to address the danger 

that defendant poses. The court was persuaded by Mr. 

Gildea's argument, however, that electronic monitoring 

will offer little protection in light of the proximity 

of defendant's residence to that of Ms. Sanchez.

Case 1:06-cr-00168-PB Document 18 Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 4
4

The court finds that defendant did not meet his burden to 

show by clear and convincing evidence that his release, even on 

strict conditions, would pose no danger to any other person or 

the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be 

detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 22, 2011

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00168-PB Document 18 Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 4