United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Dalton JR. United States District Judge.
cause is before the Court on the Government's Motion for
an Order Revoking Defendant's Pretrial Release (Doc. 18
(“Motion”)), to which Defendant
responded (Doc. 43). The Court then held a status conference
on December 7, 2017, where the Motion was granted.
(See Doc. 46.) This Order follows.
August 16, 2017, the grand jury returned a two-count
indictment against Defendant Tobias Antonio Navarrete
(“Mr. Navarrete”) charging: (1)
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance under 21 U.S.C. § 846; and (2) possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b). (Doc. 1.) Mr. Navarrete was later arrested in
the San Diego and made his initial appearance before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, sitting in the Southern
District of California. (See Doc. 21.) Magistrate
Judge Adler then held a detention hearing on October 25,
2017, where he: (1) ordered Mr. Navarrete removed to the
Middle District of Florida-the district where the alleged
offenses occured; and (2) denied the Government's oral
detention motion, which claimed that Mr. Navarrete was a
flight risk. (See Doc. 24.) Magistrate Judge Adler
ordered Mr. Navarrete released on certain conditions, which
he later modified by requiring a $15, 000 personally secured
bond by Mr. Navarrete's father and a $10, 000 personally
secured bond by Mr. Navarrete's mother. (Doc. 27
October 26, 2017, the Government filed the Motion, seeking to
stay the Release Order and revoke Mr. Navarrete's
pretrial release on grounds that Magistrate Judge Adler
failed to properly weigh the evidence presented. (Doc. 18, p.
1, 7-12.) To provide Mr. Navarrete time to respond to the
Motion and provide copies of the detention hearing
transcript, U.S. District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza stayed the
Release Order pending resolution of the Motion. (Doc. 29.)
After receiving copies of the detention hearing before
Magistrate Judge Adler (Doc. 43; see also Docs.
43-1, 43-2), the Court held a status conference.
18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1), when a magistrate judge orders
the release of a criminal defendant “the attorney for
the Government may file, with the court having original
jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the
order or amendment of the conditions of release . . . . The
motion shall be determined promptly.” The Court's
original jurisdiction is not disputed here, and the Court
finds that it may properly review the Release Order.
resolving pretrial release matters, a district court conducts
a de novo review of the case and exercises independent review
of the facts presented by the parties. United
States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1480 (11th Cir.
1985). The district court may base its review of the
magistrate judge's order on the parties' memoranda of
law and a transcript or recording of the proceedings.
United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th
Court's inquiry into the necessity of pretrial detention
is guided by 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Specifically, the Court
examines whether there are any conditions or combination of
conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant as required, as well as the safety of any other
person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A finding
that the defendant poses a flight risk or is a danger to the
community is sufficient to detain the defendant pending
trial. United States v. King, 849 F.2d
485, 488 (1988). In making this determination, the Court
considers the following factors: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and
characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that
would be posed by the defendant's release. 18 U.S.C.
resolve the Motion, the Court performed an independent, de
novo review of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge
Adler's and his resultant Release Order.
Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 1481. Ultimately, the Court
must decide whether any condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure: (1) Mr. Navarrete's
appearance during the required proceedings; and (2) the
safety of any other person and the community. Id. at
1479. Upon consideration, the Court finds that no condition
or combination of conditions of pretrial release will
reasonably assure Mr. Navarrete's appearance at future
the Court finds that Mr. Navarrete failed to rebut the
statutory presumption that his continued release risks his
appearance at future court proceedings. 18 U.S.C. §
1342(e). Section 1342(e) creates several “rebuttable
presumptions” that the Court must use in determining
whether pretrial detention is necessary. King, 849
F.2d at 487. Germane here is the statutory presumption
associated with a judicial finding of probable cause that a
defendant committed an offense punishable by a term of
imprisonment of ten years or more under the Controlled
Substances Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A)
the government makes a showing of probable cause that the
defendant committed one of the enumerated acts[, ] this
triggers the presumption that the defendant either
constitutes a danger to the community or poses a risk of
flight from justice.” Hurtado, 779 F.2d at
1479. “[T]o trigger section 3142(e)'s rebuttable
presumption, the government need not make a showing of
probable cause independent of the grand jury's
indictment.” King, 849 F.2d at 487-88. Here,
Mr. Navarrete was indicted on two offenses for which a
maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is
prescribed by the Controlled Substance Act. (Doc. 1). Thus,
the Statutory Presumption is triggered.
the Statutory Presumption is triggered, the burden shifts to
the defendant to produce “evidence to suggest that [he]
is either not dangerous or not likely to flee if turned loose
on bail.” Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 1479. At a
detention hearing, the defendant may satisfy this burden by
testifying, presenting witnesses on her behalf,
cross-examining any ...