United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
DETENTION ORDER THE
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge.
COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sect. 3142, finds that: no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant as required and/or the safety of any other person
and the community. 18 U.S.C. Sect. 3142(e).
Court will not consider either the probability of removal due
to immigration proceedings, or an immigration detainer.
United States v. Santos-Flores, 794 F.3d 1088, 1092
(9th Cir. 2015).
presumption of detention - under 18 U.S.C. Sect.
3142(e)(3)(A) -- applies in this situation, because the
defendant is charged with Distribution of Methamphetamine,
involving 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts,
isomers, and salts of its isomers, or 500 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its
isomers, under 21 U.S.C. Sect. 812, Schedule II and Sect.
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A). Dkt. 1, Complaint. The defendant has
not overcome the presumption. The government met its burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant presents a significant risk of flight or
non-appearance based on the defendant's history
concerning evading the immigration laws of the United States
and using a different name and date of birth (Remando Valdez,
and birth date May 9, 1965, which the defendant started using
in approximately 1983). Dkt. 21, First Supplemental Pretrial
Services Report at 3.
Court also finds the government met its burden of proving by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a
significant risk of danger to others and to the community. As
the Government pointed out during the detention hearing, the
defendant was involved with a drug distribution effort where
the investigators seized approximately eight pounds of
methamphetamine. In addition, approximately one pound of
methamphetamine was seized from the cooperating defendant,
allegedly distributed by the defendant. Dkt. 1, Complaint at
with conditions by which the defendant's whereabouts
could potentially be monitored, the Court finds that there
are no conditions of release that would effectively mitigate
the potential for danger to the community, or risk of flight
or non-appearance. Even with diligent supervision, every
phone call to or from the defendant cannot be monitored. Nor
would the probation and pretrial services professionals be
able to control other people who might come to the residence
where the defendant may be residing.
the defendant has positive relationships with his family, and
substantial ties to the community in California where he
resides, the proposed placement does not appear to be stable
or reliable in terms of regulating his ability to control his
behavior at this time. Dkt. 20-1 (Letters of support from
family and community members). The defendant has not had
gainful, lawful employment since 2015. He allegedly delivered
eight pounds of methamphetamine by using a runner and making
arrangements by phone. There is a significant risk of danger
to the community because of the amount of methamphetamine
that Mr. Madrigal Lemos allegedly distributed, and the Court
may draw a reasonable inference that Mr. Madrigal Lemos was
likely a person who holds or held a position of leadership in
the illegal drug distribution organization. The cooperating
defendant had $35, 000 in cash and approximately one pound of
methamphetamine, suggesting that he or she was a courier who
worked for the organization. Mr. Madrigal Lemos was allegedly
involved in setting up a transaction by phone for
approximately eight pounds of methamphetamine. According to
the Government, the amount of methamphetamine involved here
would be the equivalent of about 30, 000 to 40, 000
individual doses of methamphetamine. This shows extreme
danger to the community because of the defendant's
alleged involvement in distributing methamphetamine - an
illegal drug with very destructive and addictive qualities.
defendant asserted that he would be unlikely to flee to
Mexico, but the Court is concerned about the defendant's
potential risk of non-appearance, based on his use of an
alias for many years - as a means to avoid detection for
purposes of evading immigration laws of the United States. An
alias could also be used to avoid detection and arrest in the
event that the defendant deviated from the conditions of
supervision or absconded from pretrial supervision.
finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense(s) charged, 2) the history and characteristics of the
person; and 3) the nature and seriousness of the danger
release would impose to any person or the community; and (4)
the potential for flight or failure to appear.
The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the
Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility
separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or
serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for
private consultation with counsel.
The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States
or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered
to a United States Marshal for the purpose of ...