Opinion ID: 199449
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adequacy of Conditions

Text: A. $150,000 Bond Secured by $15,000 from Fortes and Goncalves We need not assume that Neves lacks close ties to his family and to Goncalves to find that the bond provides inadequate protection against flight. As the government argued before the district court, Fortes and Goncalves might well be willing to sacrifice the $15,000 security to help Neves avoid being deported again to Cape Verde. Both sureties testified that they felt it was unfair for Neves to be deported to a country where he has no ties and faces language and cultural barriers. Although the sureties also testified that they were willing to put up their life savings because they trusted Neves to appear in court, the prospect of a significant federal sentence followed by deportation might overcome Neves’ loyalty to his family and friends. B. Electronic Monitoring -7- We have recognized the value of electronic monitoring in pretrial release cases “especially in allowing early detection of possible flight.” Tortora, 922 F.2d at 887. But, where, as in this case, there is a particularly strong incentive to flee, the early detection capabilities of electronic monitoring may be insufficient to overcome that incentive and to guard against the risk of flight. Neves argues that electronic monitoring would be effective here because he “utterly lacks the resources to run very far for very long.” However, as explained above, we are not persuaded that lack of resources poses an insurmountable hurdle to Neves’ flight. C. Placement of Neves in the Custody of his Mother. Neves argues on appeal that his mother will be able to control him because her custody will be augmented by the electronic monitor. It is not clear, however, what additional protection Neves’ mother would provide, beyond that provided by the electronic bracelet. We do not doubt the sincerity of her good intentions, but Fortes’ ability to serve as custodian is hampered by, among other things, her full-time job which she testified keeps her away from home for “forty or more” hours a week. -8- Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the district court’s reasons for revoking release, we are not persuaded that a different result should have been reached. The evidence supports a finding that Neves poses a risk of flight and that no condition or combination of conditions (including those imposed by the magistrate judge) would reasonably assure Neves’ appearance in court. His record of failed appearances combined with the weight of the evidence and near-certainty of deportation persuade us that the district court did not err in granting the government’s motion pursuant to § 3142(e). The district court’s order, dated April 18, 2001, revoking the magistrate judge’s order of release and ordering Neves detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), is affirmed. -9-