Opinion ID: 6330341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternatives to Detention

Text: If a district court concludes that a defendant poses a serious flight risk, the Bail Reform Act requires the court to hold a detention hearing to “determine whether any condition or combination of conditions . . . will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required.” Id. § 3142(f). The Bail Reform Act includes a non-exhaustive list of additional conditions—such as travel restrictions, reporting requirements, and a curfew—which may be imposed to assure appearance. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The statute instructs courts, when determining whether any set of conditions will reasonably assure a defendant’s appearance, to consider four factors, only three of which are relevant here 1: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence . . . ; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; [and] (3) the history and characteristics of the person . . . .” Id. § 3142(g). After thorough consideration of the § 3142(g) factors, the district court determined that no combination of release conditions would reasonably assure the brothers’ appearance at further proceedings. We perceive no error in the district court’s analysis of the § 3142(g) factors. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the district court expressly concluded that conditions of release would not be adequate, the brothers contend that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to address any specific conditions of release and why they would be inadequate. Neither the text of the Bail Reform Act nor our caselaw requires that a district court do so expressly. The only factors the statute explicitly requires the district 1 The fourth factor applies when detention is premised on risk to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). Here, the brothers’ detention is premised on a flight risk concern, not risk to the community, so, as the district court appropriately determined, that factor does not apply. 6 Case: 21-40878 Document: 00516273321 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 21-40878 court to state consideration of are those in § 3142(g). The brothers cite a case from another circuit to argue that the district court must expressly set out the specific conditions and why they do not suffice. See United States v. BerriosBerrios, 791 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1986). We need not decide whether we agree with Berrios-Berrios because, unlike in that case, here there is evidence of “apparent misrepresentations” that the brothers made about their finances and property owned abroad. In other words, the facts are different in this case than those in Berrios-Berrios. Given the particular facts of this case and the district court’s extensive consideration of the § 3142(g) factors, we are unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in this case.