Page 1 of 3 

WO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America 

v. 

Guadalupe Villa-Lopez 

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Case Number: 15-9509MJ 

 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the 

following facts are established:(Check one or both, as applicable.) 

☐ by clear and convincing evidence the defendant is a danger to the community and require the detention of the 

defendant pending trial in this case. 

☒ by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is a serious flight risk and require the detention of the 

defendant pending trial in this case. 

PART I -- FINDINGS OF FACT 

☐ (1) 18 U.S.C. '3142 (e)(2)(A): The defendant has been convicted of a (federal offense)(state or local 

offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had 

existed) that is: 

☐ a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. ' 3156(a)(4). 

☐ an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death. 

☐ an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed 

in .1

☐ a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal 

offenses described in 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f)(1)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses. 

☐ any felony that involves a minor victim or that involves the possession or use of a firearm or 

destructive device (as those terms are defined in section 921), or any other dangerous weapon, or 

involves a failure to register under 18 U.S.C. '2250. 

☐ (2) 18 U.S.C. '3142(e)(2)(B): The offense described in finding 1 was committed while the defendant was 

on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense. 

☐ (3) 18 U.S.C. '3142(e)(2)(C): A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the (date of 

conviction)(release of the defendant from imprisonment) for the offense described in finding 1. 

☐ (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions will reasonably assure the safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. I further find 

that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption. 

Alternative Findings 

☐ (1) 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3): There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense: 

☐ for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .1

☐ under 18 U.S.C. ' 924(c), 956(a), or 2332b. 

☐ under 18 U.S.C. 1581-1594, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more is 

 

1

Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. ' 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export 

Act (21 U.S.C. ' 951 et seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. ' 955a). 

Case 2:15-mj-09509-ESW Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3 

prescribed. 

☐ an offense involving a minor victim under section .2

☐ (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding 1 that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the 

safety of the community. 

 

Alternative Findings 

☒ (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee; no condition or combination of conditions will 

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. 

☐ (2) No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

community. 

☐ (3) There is a serious risk that the defendant will (obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice) (threaten, injure, or 

intimidate a prospective witness or juror). 

☐ (4) 

PART II -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(Check one or both, as applicable.) 

☐ (1) I find that the credible testimony and information3 submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and 

convincing evidence as to danger that: 

 

 

☒ (2) I find that a preponderance of the evidence as to risk of flight that: 

☐ The defendant has no significant contacts in the District of Arizona. 

☒ The defendant has no resources in the United States from which he/she might make a bond 

reasonably calculated to assure his/her future appearance. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☐ There is a record of prior failure to appear in court as ordered. 

☐ The defendant attempted to evade law enforcement contact by fleeing from law enforcement. 

☐ The defendant is facing a minimum mandatory of ____ incarceration and a maximum of ______. 

☒ The defendant does not dispute the information contained in the Pretrial Services Report. 

 

☒ In addition: 

 The defendant is not a United States citizen and does not have documentation that allows him to reside here and 

therefore he was in the United States illegally at the time of his arrest. The defendant does not have financial 

 

2

Insert as applicable 18 U.S.C. ''1201, 1591,2241-42, 2244(a)(1), 2245, 2251, 2251A, 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3, 

2252(a)(4), 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425.

3

The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of 

information at the detention hearing. 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f). See 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(g) for the factors to be taken into account.

Case 2:15-mj-09509-ESW Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 

ties to the community and his employment does not appear stable as he proffers that he is self-employed working 

odd jobs. While he proffers that he has family members residing in the Phoenix area, he has a state court order 

that prevents him from residing with or having contact with his common law wife and child. He proffers that he 

could reside with a friend, but the Court has no additional information from which to determine whether that 

would be a suitable residence or if it would support location monitoring. The Court finds that the defendant 

does not have a stable residence. The defendant’s criminal history includes a conviction for criminal 

impersonation based on his use of a false social security number. The government proffers that the defendant 

also used a fictitious driver’s license. He was removed from the United States on two occasions and returned to 

the United States. The defendant argues that this demonstrates that he will not flee from the district. The 

Court concludes that while the defendant may have incentives to remain in the United States, that does not mean 

that he has incentives to appear in court. Furthermore, the defendant’s return to the United States after 

removals demonstrates a disregard for court orders. The Court concludes that the defendant is unlikely to 

appear at court or abide by court orders and therefore poses a risk of flight that cannot be addressed by 

conditions. 

The Court incorporates by reference the findings of the Pretrial Services Agency which were reviewed by the 

Court at the time of the hearing in this matter. 

PART III -- DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/her 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. 

PART IV -- APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE

IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the District Court, it is counsel’s 

responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the 

hearing set before the District Court. Pursuant to Rule 59(a), FED.R.CRIM.P., effective December 1, 2009, Defendant 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this order or after the oral order is stated on the record 

within which to file specific written objections with the district court. Failure to timely file objections in accordance 

with Rule 59(a) may waive the right to review. 59(a), FED.R.CRIM.P. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it is counsel’s responsibility 

to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an 

opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third party custodian. 

Dated this 5th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-mj-09509-ESW Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 3