Court Opinion

ID: 2965475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:40:54.362563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:45.268474
License: Public Domain

<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>

	<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">

		<!--

		@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

		-->

	</style>

</head>

<body>

<p align=center>

</p><br>

<pre>      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br>                 United States Court of Appeals <br>                     For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 98-1783 <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                       Plaintiff, Appellee, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>                     ROBERTO ANTONIO BLANCO, <br> <br>                      Defendant, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br>           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br>                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br>         [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br>                              Before <br> <br>                     Torruella, Chief Judge, <br>               Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>     Rafael F. Castro Lang and Ramon L. Garay Medina, on Motion <br>Appealing District Court's Denial of Bail to Defendant, for <br>appellant. <br>     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles- <br>Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Camille Velez-Rive, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>September 8, 1998 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>                                 <br> <br>     Per Curiam.  After independently reviewing the district court <br>record, and giving due deference to that court's determinations of <br>fact, see United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 882 (1st Cir. <br>1990), we affirm the order of pretrial detention for essentially <br>the reasons stated by the district court in its Opinion and Order, <br>dated June 30, 1998.  This order concluded that defendant had <br>failed to rebut the presumption that "no condition or combination <br>of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person <br>as required and the safety of the community."  See 18 U.S.C.  <br>3142(e). <br>     The judgment of the district court is affirmed.    <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>                               -2- <br></pre>

</body>

</html>