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. Diaz

United States District Court, D. Idaho

May 16, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
v.
ISRAEL RAMIREZ DIAZ, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          EDWARD-J. LODGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter is the Government's Motion for Stay of Release Order and Request for Detention Hearing. (Dkt. 16.) The parties have filed their responsive briefing on the Motion and, on May 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the Government's Motion.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 14, 2018, the grand jury returned a two count Indictment charging the Defendant, Israel Ramirez Diaz, with Distributing Cocaine and Distributing Methamphetamine. (Dkt. 1.) The alleged conduct giving rise to the charges occurred on October 26, 2017 and November 6, 2017, respectively. (Id.)

         Also on February 14, 2018, an Arrest Warrant was issued for Mr. Diaz. (Dkt. 2.) Just over two months later, on April 16, 2018, Mr. Diaz was arrested on the Warrant (Dkt. 5) and the Government filed a Motion for Detention pending trial (Dkt. 4). The next day, ORDER- 1 Defendant was arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale who issued a temporary order of detention and set the matter for a detention hearing on April 19, 2018. (Dkts. 7, 11.)

         The United States Probation Office issued an initial pretrial service report on April 17, 2018 with an addendum on April 19, 2018. (Dkts. 16-2, 16-3.) On April 19, 2018, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush held a detention hearing. (Dkts. 14, 19.) At that hearing, the Court reviewed the record, admitted the pretrial services reports into evidence, and heard testimony from DEA Agent, John Aldine; Defendant's sister, Rachel Diaz; and Defendant's mother, Laura Ramirez. (Id.)

         Ultimately, the Court denied the Government's Motion for Detention pending trial (Dkt. 4) and ordered that Mr. Diaz be released upon certain conditions. (Dkt. 15.) These conditions include home detention under the oversight of a third-party custodian and location monitoring. (Id.)

         Also on April 19, 2018, the Government filed the instant Motion for Stay of Release Order and Request for a Detention Hearing. (Dkt. 16.) Essentially, the Government appeals from the Magistrate Judge's Order Setting Conditions of Release (“Release Order”) (Dkt. 15).

         On May 15, 2018, the United States Probation Office prepared a second pretrial services report. At that May 16, 2018 hearing, the Court admitted the second pretrial services report; heard arguments from counsel, including Defendant's objection to portions of the report; and considered Defendant's further proffer of evidence.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Government's Motion is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1), which provides that “if a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, ” then “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.” An appeal from a release order, like an appeal from a detention order, “is governed by the provisions of section 1291 of title 28 and section 3731 of this title.” 18 U.S.C. §3145(c). Further, “[t]he appeal shall be determined promptly.” Id.

         Nevertheless, in considering the Government's appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Release Order, the district court does not exercise its appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Keonig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 1990). Rather, the district court reviews the matter de novo and without deference to the Magistrate Judge's findings. This is because the district court, “unlike a court of appeals, is equipped to explore and redetermine factual issues if that proves necessary.” Id.

         In exercising de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's Release Order, “the district court is not required to start over in every case . . . and proceed as if the magistrate's decision and findings do not exist.” Id. at 1193. At the same time, the district court “should review the evidence before the magistrate and make its own independent determination whether the magistrate's findings are correct, with no deference.” Id. at 1193. Moreover, the Court may conduct an additional evidentiary hearing. Id. “The point is that the district court is to make its own ‘de novo' determination of facts, whether different from or an adoption of the findings ...


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.