Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM

Document 543

Filed 10/10/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-cr-00149-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. NADIA C. PASILLAS, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on October 10, 2007. Present were the following: David Gaouette, Assistant United States Attorney, John Mosby, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the Pretrial Services Report and considered the comments of counsel. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding. DATED and ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM

Document 543

Filed 10/10/2007

Page 2 of 3

United States v. Nadia C. Pasillas Case Number 01-cr-00149-WDM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION

In order to sustain a motion for detention, the government must establish that (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the defendant's presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community. The former element must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while the latter requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. If there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years and is an offense prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. The Bail Reform Act, 18, U.S.C, § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the following factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community: (1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; the weight of the evidence against the person; the history and characteristics of the person, including ­ (A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and

(2) (3)

(B)

(4)

the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.

Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM

Document 543

Filed 10/10/2007

Page 3 of 3

The government is requesting detention in this case. In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Pretrial Services Report and entire court file, and have considered the comments of counsel. I further note that during the detention hearing on October 10, 2007, defense counsel stated that his client would not challenge the United States' request for detention. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following: First, the defendant was indicted under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (knowingly and intentionally using a communications facility to facilitate the commission of a felony) and 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (knowingly causing a person to travel in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute the proceeds and promote, manage, carry on and facilitate an unlawful activity). The grand jury has found that probable cause exists that the defendant committed the charged offenses. Second, I note the defendant appears to be a citizen of the Republic of Mexico. The defendant's parents live in Texas and she appears to have no family ties to the District of Colorado. Defendant currently is the subject of an active detainer lodged by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also appears that the defendant may have been deported from the United States on one prior occasion. The United States has not argued that the defendant poses a threat to the community. However, in light of the defendant's prior deportation, her ties to Mexico, the pending ICE detainer, and the defendant's decision not to contest the government's request for detention, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant for further proceedings in this case.