From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mendoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 29, 2011
CR No. 09-230(A)-SVW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

CR No. 09-230(A)-SVW

11-29-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON NARCISO MORALEZ MENDOZA, ET AL., Defendants.

ANDRE BIROTTE JR. United States Attorney ROBERT E. DUGDALE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division ARIEL A. NEUMAN JUSTIN RHOADES JEFF MITCHELL Assistant United States Attorneys Violent & Organized Crime Section Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


ANDRE BIROTTE JR.

United States Attorney

ROBERT E. DUGDALE

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Criminal Division

ARIEL A. NEUMAN

JUSTIN RHOADES

JEFF MITCHELL

Assistant United States Attorneys

Violent & Organized Crime Section

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[proposed] FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER REGARDING PRETRIAL DETENTION OF DEFENDANT DAVID PITTS

The Court having reviewed and considered the First Superseding Indictment in this matter, the Pretrial Services Report related to defendant David Pitts ("defendant"), the proffered testimony of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Gregory Conners, and the argument of counsel for the United States, finds as follows:

1. There is probable cause to believe that defendant has committed an offense under Title 21 with a ten-year or greater maximum penalty, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), the Court therefore presumes that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required and the safety of the community.

2. Defendant has not offered evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

3. Defendant appears to have taken steps to avoid arrest since the time of indictment and therefore poses an additional risk of non-appearance.

4. Defendant's lengthy criminal history, including numerous parole and probation violations, suggests that defendant poses an additional danger to the community.

Good cause therefore having been shown, defendant is ordered DETAINED pending trial in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

ARIEL A. NEUMAN

Assistant United States Attorney


Summaries of

United States v. Mendoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 29, 2011
CR No. 09-230(A)-SVW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Mendoza

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON NARCISO MORALEZ MENDOZA, ET…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

CR No. 09-230(A)-SVW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)