1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Alexis Arrieta,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01501-001-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Following a December 21, 2015 detention hearing, the Court found by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant is a flight risk and ordered that Defendant 

be detained pending trial. (Doc. 161). On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to 

Reconsider Detention (Doc. 271), which Defendant states is made pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 12(b), 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Because the Motion 

presents information not available at Defendant’s detention hearing, it is construed as a 

motion to reopen the detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). For the reasons 

set forth below, Defendant’s request to reopen the detention hearing is denied. To the 

extent that Defendant seeks a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s detention order 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), the Motion is referred to the assigned District Judge for 

further consideration. 

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 280 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2015, Defendant was indicted on one count of Conspiracy to 

Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

(Doc. 10 at 3). Following Defendant’s arrest on December 8, 2015, Pretrial Services 

interviewed Defendant. (Docs. 44, 47, 110). Defendant informed Pretrial Services that 

he has been using heroin for approximately six years1 and uses the “drug, daily, 

intravenously.” (Doc. 47 at 2). Defendant also voluntarily submitted a urine specimen, 

which tested positive for marijuana and heroin. (Id. at 3). In its report, Pretrial Services 

recommended that Defendant be detained because it found that no condition or 

combination of conditions existed to reasonably assure either Defendant’s appearance in 

court or the safety of the community. (Id. at 4).

On December 9, 2015, the Court held Defendant’s Initial Appearance and 

Arraignment. (Doc. 99). After Defendant pled not guilty, the Court ordered that 

Defendant be temporarily detained and set a detention hearing. In addition, the Court

ordered Pretrial Services to screen Defendant for possible placement at a residential 

treatment facility. (Id.).

In its December 17, 2015 report, Pretrial Services indicated that the intake 

coordinator at the Crossroads residential treatment facility determined that Defendant is 

suitable for their facility and that the facility will have available bed space beginning on 

January 5, 2016. (Doc. 146 at 4). Pretrial Services continued to find that Defendant is a 

flight risk and danger to the community based on Defendant’s prior failures to appear, 

self-reported drug abuse history, current drug use, and prior criminal record. (Id. at 4). 

However, Pretrial Services recommended that Defendant be released on his own personal 

recognizance subject to a number of conditions, including the condition that Defendant 

reside at the Crossroads residential treatment facility and follow all program 

requirements. (Id. at 4-5).

1 Defendant was 30 years old at the time of the Pretrial Services’ interview and reported using heroin since age 24. (Doc. 47 at 1-2).

- 2 -

 

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 280 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

At the December 21, 2015 detention hearing, the Court found by a preponderance 

of the evidence that: (i) Defendant has no resources in the United States from which he 

might make a bond reasonably calculated to assure his future appearance; (ii) Defendant 

has a prior criminal history; (iii) there is a record of prior failure to appear as ordered; (iv) 

Defendant has a history of substance abuse; (v) the weight of the evidence against 

Defendant is great; and (vi) Defendant has a history of failure to comply with court 

orders, including multiple violations of probation conditions and repeated failures to 

appear. (Doc. 161 at 2-3). The Court also noted that Defendant used heroin daily and 

that his prior treatment attempts have been unsuccessful. (Id. at 3). After considering the 

above findings and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court found

Defendant to be a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id. at 1). The Court 

thus ordered that Defendant be detained pending trial. (Id.).

In his March 2016 Motion to Reconsider Detention, Defendant asserts that he has 

“resolved any substance abuse issues” during his three months of incarceration and 

should be considered for release. (Doc. 271 at 3). Defendant’s trial is set for April 5, 

2016 (Doc. 269).

II. DISCUSSION

The Bail Reform Act provides that a detention hearing may be reopened “at any 

time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to 

the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether 

there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person 

as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(f)(2). “Courts have interpreted this provision strictly, holding that 

[detention] hearings should not be reopened if the evidence was available at the time of 

the initial hearing.” United States v. Ward, 63 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1206 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

(citing United States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d 1412, 1415 (1st Cir. 1991)).

With the exception of Defendant’s assertion that he is no longer using heroin, all 

of the other factual assertions presented in Defendant’s Motion were presented, or could 

- 3 -

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 280 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

have been presented by Defendant during the December 21, 2015 detention hearing. 

Moreover, Defendant has provided no evidence that he has received substance abuse 

treatment while incarcerated. Defendant’s alleged three-month period of sobriety may be 

attributed to a lack of access to heroin while incarcerated. Defendant has presented no 

new information that has a material bearing on the Court’s previous finding that 

Defendant is a flight risk and that detention of Defendant is required pending trial. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to reopen the detention hearing is denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Detention (Doc. 

271) to the extent Defendant moves to reopen the detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(f).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 271) 

seeks a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s December 21, 2015 detention order

(Doc. 161) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), Defendant’s Motion is referred to the 

assigned District Judge for further consideration. 

Dated this 16th day of March, 2016. 

- 4 - 

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 280 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 4