Opinion
22-cr-212-3 (JGK)
06-30-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RALPH BALSAMO, Defendant.
ORDER
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The defendant, Ralph Balsamo, seeks to modify the conditions of his pre-trial release to allow for employment as a mason. ECF No. 57. For the reasons explained below, the application is denied.
The defendant has been indicted for a very serious offense - conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The Government estimates that the defendant's Sentencing Guideline Range is 77 to 96 months' imprisonment. The defendant has four prior convictions including a conviction in 2006 involving drugs, gambling, and obstruction of justice for which the defendant was sentenced principally to 97 months' imprisonment. In connection with the current indictment, the Pre-Trial Services Officer recommended that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community and therefore the defendant should be remanded pending trial. But the Government and the defendant agreed upon a set of conditions for the defendant's release. The conditions included home incarceration with location monitoring and strict conditions limiting contact with any persons except limited categories of persons including the defendant's attorney, medical personnel, and persons approved by the Government. These conditions were imposed on April 26, 2022. ECF No. 51.
The defendant now seeks to alter the conditions of his release to permit him to work as a mason which would necessarily be a major exception to the conditions of home confinement and would render the no contact provision difficult, if not impossible, to monitor. But the relevant considerations for release argue strongly for the original conditions that the defendant agreed to adhere to only about two months ago.
The nature and seriousness of the offense, the weight of the evidence against the defendant as detailed by the Government, together with the history of the defendant including his prior convictions argue strongly for protective conditions of pre-trial release. Those conditions would be undermined by the defendant's proposed work.
Therefore, the application to modify the conditions of the defendant's pre-trial release to permit him to work as a mason is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 57 and 58.
SO ORDERED.