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. Madriz-Cerna

United States District Court, D. Idaho

July 31, 2019

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LORENZO MADRIZ-CERNA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is the Government's Motion for Revocation of Release Order. Dkt. 26. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by further hearings, the Court will decide the Motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Government's Motion for Revocation of Release Order. Accordingly, Madriz-Cerna is ordered released pending trial on the conditions outlined in the Pretrial Services Report.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The defendant, Lorenzo Madriz-Cerna (“Madriz-Cerna”), is a Mexican national who has been charged with Distribution of Methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). This charge arose out of an investigation which started after a confidential informant provided information that Madriz-Cerna was selling methamphetamine and trafficking in firearms. Dkt. 26, at 3. Madriz-Cerna then became the focus of several operations. During at least three of these, he sold either methamphetamine or firearms to undercover officers and/or a confidential informant. Madriz-Cerna was ultimately charged with distributing methamphetamine. Id., at 6.

         The Pretrial Services Report recommended that Madriz-Cerna be released on a personal recognizance bond with pretrial supervision. A number of conditions for release were recommended including location monitoring, a curfew, passport surrender, and reporting to the pretrial services officer immediately after release. Dkt.26-1, at 5.

         A detention hearing was held before United States Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush. Following that hearing, Judge Bush determined that Madriz-Cerna did not need to be detained while he awaited trial, and that there are conditions that will reasonably assure his presence in court and the safety of the community. On June 5, 2019, Judge Bush ordered Madriz-Cerna released. The Government then filed its Motion for Revocation of Release Order on June 20, 2019. Dkt 26.

         Madriz-Cerna was born in Mexico but has lived in the United States since 2006. Dkt. 29, at 1. He and his partner have a five-year-old son together and are also raising seven other minor children whom his partner adopted. Id. Madriz-Cerna owns his own construction business. Id. He has had no criminal charges in the past ten years. Id. Madriz-Cerna owns property in Mexico where his parents and most of his siblings still reside. Dkt. 26, at 3. He was twice convicted of illegally entering the United States and twice removed to Mexico. Id.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Bail Reform Act specifies that a judicial officer must detain a defendant pending trial if “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

         The standard of review for pretrial release or detention orders is de novo. United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court makes “its own independent determination whether the magistrate's findings are correct, with no deference.” Id. The Court may hold additional evidentiary hearings but is not required to do so. See id.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         On a motion for pretrial detention, the Government bears the burden to show that (1) the defendant poses a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence or (2) that the defendant poses a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406-07 (9th Cir. 1985). A rebuttable presumption against release exists when there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act. 18 U.S.C. ...


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.