Source: http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190923_0000738.WTX.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 19:27:56
Document Index: 230416457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3142', '§ 3142', '§ 3142', '§ 801', '§ 951', '§ 70501', '§ 924', '§ 3142']

FindACase™ | United States v. Cantu
Ruben Cantu (19) Defendant
Part I - Eligibility for Detention
Upon Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. This order sets forth the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in addition to any other findings made at the hearing.
X A. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses):
There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed one or more of the following offenses:
X (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508); or
[ ] (2) an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c).
B. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above
The presumption shifts to the defendant only the burden of producing rebutting evidence, not the burden of persuasion. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989). Even assuming the defendant has produced adequate rebutting evidence, the presumption remains a factor to be considered by the Court and “may be weighed in the evidentiary balance.” Id. at 799.
Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention
After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the pretrial services report, and the evidence and arguments of counsel presented at the detention hearing, the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:
X By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community.
X By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required.
In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention ...