Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Sanchez

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 28, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSHUA MANUEL SANCHEZ, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES C. CACHERIS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Joshua Manuel Sanchez's Motion for Revocation of the Detention Order entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on April 27, 2015. [Dkt. 19.] The Court denied the Defendant's motion in open court after hearing argument of counsel. This opinion memorializes the Court's findings.

I. Background

On March 19, 2015 a criminal complaint was filed in this district charging the Defendant with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant was arrested in San Ysidro, California near the Mexican border. The following day, the Defendant appeared in the Southern District of California, and he subsequently waived his right to an identification and removal hearing. He was detained pending removal to this district.

On April 24, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Nachmanoff held a preliminary hearing and detention hearing. Judge Nachmanoff found probable cause, and by clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk that the Defendant will not appear and that he will endanger the safety of another person or the community. On April 27, 2015, Judge Nachmanoff entered an order of detention pending trial. On May 21, 2015, the grand jury returned an indictment charging the Defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of wire fraud.

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion to Revoke the Detention Order. [Dkt. 19.] The Government opposes the Defendant's motion and asks that he be detained pending trial. [Dkt. 20.] The Court heard oral argument of counsel on May 28, 2015 and denied the Defendant's motion.

II. Legal Standard

"When the district court acts on a motion to revoke or amend a magistrate judge's pretrial detention order, the district court acts de novo and must make an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions or release." United States v. Stewart, 19 F.Appx. 46, 48 (4th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Clark, 865 F.2d 1433, 1436 (4th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).

III. Analysis

After conducting a hearing pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, if the Court determines that no condition or combination or conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, the defendant shall be detained pending trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). "For pretrial detention to be imposed on a defendant, the lack of reasonable assurance of either the defendant's appearance or the safety of others or the community, is sufficient; both are not required." Stewart, 19 F.Appx. at 48 (citing United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585-86 (5th Cir. 1992)). The Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings, or by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. Stewart, 19 F.Appx. at 48 (citations omitted); see also United States v. Simms, 128 F.Appx. 314, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)).

In determining whether there are release conditions that can meet that standard, the judicial officer shall consider the following factors: (1) nature and the circumstances of the offense charged; (2) weight of evidence against the person; (3) history and characteristics of the person; and (4) 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). Nothing in the Bail Reform Act "shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j).

If the judicial officer finds that there are release conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and protect the community, the judicial officer shall order pretrial release of the person on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). If pre-trial release is appropriate, but a personal recognizance or an unsecured bond will not reasonably guarantee the return of the defendant for trial or will endanger the safety of the community, the judicial officer shall release the defendant "subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions" that will guarantee the defendant's appearance and protect the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B).

The Court conducted a detention hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). After hearing argument of counsel, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that detention is necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant at future court proceedings. This opinion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.