Court Opinion

ID: 9906563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 16:01:30.936468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:12.516988
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6180     Document: 010110962277      Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       December 4, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                        No. 23-6180
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00227-R-1)
  ERICK GACHUHI WANJIKU,                                    (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku was convicted by a jury on two counts of assaulting a

 federal officer. He then moved for a new trial and for release pending sentencing.

 The district court denied both motions and Mr. Wanjiku has appealed pro se.1 We

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
       1
          We liberally construe pro se pleadings, but we do not make arguments for pro
 se litigants or otherwise advocate on their behalf. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
 & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 23-6180    Document: 010110962277        Date Filed: 12/04/2023    Page: 2

 affirm the denial of his motion for release pending sentencing, and we dismiss his

 appeal of the denial of a new trial because Mr. Wanjiku has not yet been sentenced.

                                    I. Background

       Mr. Wanjiku was a lawful permanent resident until he was convicted in

 Oklahoma state court of domestic assault and battery, rape, and kidnapping. In May

 2023, he completed his three-year prison sentence and was taken into immigration

 custody for removal proceedings.

       While in custody, Mr. Wanjiku physically attacked two federal immigration

 officers, which led to a criminal indictment in the Western District of Oklahoma for

 two counts of assaulting a federal officer. Following a detention hearing, the district

 court concluded that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably

 assure the safety of any other person and the community, and therefore ordered that

 Mr. Wanjiku be detained pending trial.

       A jury convicted Mr. Wanjiku on both counts. Mr. Wanjiku then filed a

 motion for new trial on August 28, 2023, and a motion for release from detention

 pending sentencing on September 19, 2023. The district court denied both motions in

 a written order. Mr. Wanjiku filed a timely notice of appeal. His sentencing hearing

 has not yet been scheduled.

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-6180    Document: 010110962277        Date Filed: 12/04/2023        Page: 3

                                     II. Discussion

       A. Detention Order

       With respect to the district court’s detention decision, Mr. Wanjiku

 characterizes his appeal as one arising under Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate

 Procedure. We accept that characterization.

       We review the district court’s detention decision de novo because it presents

 mixed questions of law and fact; however, we review the underlying findings of fact

 for clear error. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003). “A

 finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the

 reviewing court, on review of the entire record, is left with the definite and firm

 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Gilgert, 314 F.3d

 506, 515 (10th Cir. 2002) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). We

 review the district court’s findings with significant deference, cognizant that “our

 role is not to re-weigh the evidence.” Id. at 515-16.

       The Bail Reform Act mandates a presumption of detention once a defendant is

 convicted and sentencing is pending, “unless the judicial officer finds by clear and

 convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety

 of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c).”

 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). Thus, Mr. Wanjiku must rebut the presumption of detention

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-6180     Document: 010110962277        Date Filed: 12/04/2023      Page: 4

 with clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to any

 person or the community.2

       We agree with the district court that Mr. Wanjiku has failed to rebut the

 presumption of detention. We examine four factors in determining whether any

 release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others and the community:

 “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged . . . ; (2) the weight of the

 evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person . . . ; and

 (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that

 would be posed by the person’s release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

       Mr. Wanjiku argues that his detention is based primarily on an immigration

 detainer and that he is still challenging the state conviction on which it is based. The

 detention order, however, is supported by more than just the fact of an immigration

 detainer. In ordering pretrial detention, the district court found, among other things,

 that the weight of the evidence against Mr. Wanjiku was strong and included video

 footage showing Mr. Wanjiku kicking one officer and biting another. It also found

 that Mr. Wanjiku has a prior criminal history (including participating in criminal

 activity while on probation) and a history of violence. In denying Mr. Wanjiku’s

 motion for release pending sentencing, the district court further noted that, if

       2
         The government argues Mr. Wanjiku was convicted of a crime of violence
 and so the more stringent requirements of § 3143(a)(2) apply here. We need not
 address this argument in light of our conclusion that Mr. Wanjiku has failed to rebut
 the presumption under § 3143(a)(1).
                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-6180    Document: 010110962277         Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 5

 anything, the case for post-trial detention has been strengthened given Mr. Wanjiku’s

 conviction for physically assaulting the immigration officers.

       In short, the district court made the necessary factual findings to support its

 denial of Mr. Wanjiku’s motion for release pending sentencing.

       B. Motion for New Trial

       The government contends that Mr. Wanjiku’s appeal of the district court’s

 denial of his motion for new trial is premature. We agree. Our jurisdiction is limited

 to final decisions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and a criminal judgment is not final until a

 defendant has been sentenced, see Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212

 (1937). Because Mr. Wanjiku has not been sentenced, we lack jurisdiction to review

 that portion of the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial.

 Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of his appeal.

                                     III. Conclusion

       We affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Wanjiku’s motion for release

 pending sentencing. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction his appeal of the denial of

 his motion for a new trial.

                                              Entered for the Court
                                              Per Curiam

                                             5