Opinion
CR-24-01681-001-TUC-JCH (JR)
07-10-2024
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Ramon Renteria, Defendant.
SEALED ORDER
JOHN C. HINDERAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are the Government's "Motion for Stay of Release and Review of Magistrate Judge's Release Order" under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), Doc. 9, and Supplement to its Motion. Doc. 11. The Government appeals District of Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty's decision to release Defendant Ramon Renteria on an unsecured $10,000 bond and certain conditions. See Doc. 11. Renteria opposes the motion, Doc. 16, and the Court declines to hold a hearing because it would not aid the Court's decision.
I. Background
Renteria is charged with conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine. See Doc. 4 at 2-3.
In December 2020, Renteria was arrested and admitted to transporting drugs and drug proceeds for profit. See Doc. 11 at 2. At Renteria's residence, law enforcement discovered what appeared to be a drug ledger, a scale, multiple rolls of vacuum-seal plastic and a vacuum sealer, $50,000 cash, "numerous" firearms, and a small baggie of cocaine. Id. In Renteria's vehicle, law enforcement discovered four duffel bags containing approximately 31 kilograms of methamphetamine, 10 kilograms of fentanyl, 10 kilograms of heroin, and just shy of one kilogram of cocaine. Id. The Government further states that "[d]ue to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the U.S. Courts were closed in the District of Arizona," the Government released Renteria. Doc. 11 at 3. About a week later, agents were unable to find Renteria at his Arizona residence, and two neighbors said he had moved out. Id. The Government does not say what, if anything, came of this discovery (though it does describe him as "fleeing" and "disappearing"). See id. at 3, 10.
In April 2024, a grand jury indicted Renteria. Doc. 11 at 3. In June, U.S. Marshals arrested Renteria at his residence in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Id. The Government does not say that locating Renteria was difficult, or that the time between the indictment and the arrest was due to an inability to locate Renteria. See id. When Renteria was arrested, he owned seven AR-style rifles. Id. The Government asserts the rifles could be worth as much as $7,000 but does not assert they were owned illegally. See id. at 10.
II. Legal Standard
A district court reviews a magistrate judge's detention order de novo. See United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990). The Bail Reform Act mandates pretrial release unless the court concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person in the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Upon motion, the Government may seek to detain a defendant pretrial "in a case that involves .. serious risk that such person will flee." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A).
The Bail Reform Act provides a rebuttable presumption of flight risk or danger to the community in certain cases. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A). This presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant, but the burden of persuasion remains with the Government. United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). If defendant proffers evidence to rebut the presumption of dangerousness or flight risk, the Court then considers four factors in determining whether to detain or release the defendant:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged...;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including-
(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release....18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1)-(4). However, the presumption against release remains even when rebutted, and is to be considered alongside all other relevant factors. United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008).
The Government must show the defendant poses a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding that a person presents a danger to the community must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts about the propriety of release should be resolved in Defendant's favor. Id. at 1405.
III. Analysis
As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the Government that the rebuttable presumption of flight risk or danger to the community applies in this case. See Doc. 11 at 5; 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Renteria responds that this presumption may be rebutted by carrying a burden of production only and could be met with assertions in a Pretrial Services report or certain conditions of release. Doc. 16 at 2 (citing United States v. Freitas, 602 F.Supp. 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1985)). The evidence Renteria proffers-his self-reported indigence, family in Arizona, "minor" criminal history, and the fact that he could have fled to Mexico after his release in 2020-is enough to rebut the presumption of flight risk or danger to the community. But considering the Bail Reform Act factors, the Court still finds that no condition of release could secure Renteria's appearance. See, e.g., Freitas, 602 F.Supp. at 1284 (taking this approach).
A. Bail Reform Act Factors
i. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
The Court may consider the possible punishment and the incentive to flee associated with a defendant's criminal exposure. See United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting defendants facing a greater penalty have a greater incentive to flee).
As described above, the charges are serious, and the circumstances of the offense involve potential liability for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute large quantities of multiple illegal substances. Some aspects of the evidence suggest that Renteria worked in a trusted or leadership capacity. For example, law enforcement discovered a drug ledger book, vacuum-sealed bags, and heard Renteria confess to delivering $100,000 in illegal proceeds to Tucson. Considering these and all other circumstances, Renteria faces a significant possible prison sentence-a minimum of ten years with no safety valve, Doc. 11 at 9-which creates an incentive for him to abscond.
Thus, the nature and circumstances of Renteria's offense weigh against release.
ii. Weight of the Evidence against Defendant
The weight of the evidence is the least important factor that the Court considers and is not a pretrial determination of guilt. United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1985); Townsend, 897 F.2d at 994.
If proved, the evidence against Renteria is substantial and could lead to conviction. The evidence is based on Renteria's confession together with large quantities of drugs, cash, and drug-smuggling tools in Renteria's vehicle and residence.
Thus, the strength of the evidence against Renteria weighs against release.
iii. History and Characteristics of Defendant
Renteria's history shows long-standing ties to the United States, but also ties to Mexico, recent involvement with two different women, and a gun collection potentially worth more than twice Renteria's stated monthly income.
Some aspects of Renteria's history and characteristics weigh in his favor. He is a U.S. citizen who appears to have lived in the United States all his life. Pretrial Services Report ("PSR") at 2. He is married with a seven-year old daughter, and his family intends to move to Avondale, Arizona, where his mother resides. Id. Finally, he has worked as an Uber/Doordash driver for a year. Id.
But several other aspects of Renteria's history and characteristics weigh against him. First, Renteria has a criminal history starting at a relatively young age involving three arrests on drug-related charges and one conviction by the time he was 20 years old. See PSR at 3-5. Second, Renteria has ties to Mexico. He confessed to moving drug proceeds for third parties in Mexico, Doc. 11 at 2, and he has family in Mexico. PSR at 2, 5. Renteria visited his family in Mexico as recently as December 2023. PSR at 2. Third, Renteria's family and community ties have recently weakened. He may be married with a seven-year old daughter, but he is also a new father with a different woman. Id. And he self-reports indigence and does not report any employment or plan related to his move to Avondale. See id. Finally, Renteria's stated income and expenses do not add up, and include a very high car payment and seven relatively expensive firearms. Renteria reports $3,000/month in income, but also $3,800/month in expenses. Id. The largest of these expenses after rent is a car payment of $700/month for his wife's vehicle. Id. And Renteria was arrested in Colorado with seven AR-style rifles at his residence, which the Government estimates could be worth as much as $7,000. Doc. 11 at 10 n. 2. These aspects of Renteria's history and characteristics give the Court pause.
The Court notes, as did pretrial services (PSR at 3), the tension between these arrests and Renteria's report that he had no current or prior substance abuse. The Court also notes that a small bag of cocaine was discovered at Renteria's residence after his 2020 arrest.
Overall, and despite some positive aspects, Renteria's history and characteristics weigh against release.
iv. Dangerous Nature
Considering the nature of the charged offenses involving trafficking large quantities of drugs, a potentially leadership position, and moving drug proceeds out of Mexico, as well as Renteria's history of substance abuse and apparent interest in collecting firearms, Renteria poses a risk of danger to individuals and to the community. Renteria argues (Doc. 16 at 5), and the Government concedes (Doc. 11 at 9), that Renteria's move to Colorado rather than Mexico after his arrest in Arizona could indicate that he is not dangerous or a flight risk. But the Court is troubled by the circumstances under which Renteria left Arizona without notifying the authorities, the very large quantities of drugs involved, the apparent tension in Renteria's account of his finances, and the presence of numerous firearms found after his Arizona and Colorado arrests. Although Renteria is charged with a non-violent crime, and considering all the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that releasing him would pose an unacceptable risk of danger related to illegal activity either in the United States or in Mexico.
Thus, the dangerous nature of the charged offenses and Renteria's history also weigh against release.
B. Conditions of Release
A person facing trial is entitled to release under the least restrictive conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person and should only be denied in rare circumstances. Motamedi, 767 F.2d at 1405. Even in the presence of risk, a defendant must still be released if there are conditions of release that may be imposed to mitigate the flight risk or risk to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Any doubts about the propriety of release should be resolved in a defendant's favor. Motamedi, 767 F.2d at 1405 .
Pretrial services proposed and Judge Hegarty accepted conditions including a $10,000 unsecured bond, the surrender of his passport, and not to travel except to Colorado or Arizona. PSR at 5-7; 24-MJ-118-MEH, Doc. 7. The Court is not persuaded that these conditions are adequate to ensure Renteria's appearance. Renteria's self-reported indigence is belied by aspects of his finances that suggest there is more to the story. Renteria's charges and confession imply that he was a trusted drug trafficker, perhaps in a leadership position. A person who kept a drug ledger, repackaged drugs, moved $100,000 in drug proceeds out of Mexico, and transported more than 50 kilograms of illegal substances would not find a lack of a passport much impediment to returning to Mexico. The expectation of good-faith compliance with supervision and travel restrictions would likewise present little obstacle. And Renteria's circumstances four years later reinforce rather than assuage the Court's concerns. Thus, after a de novo review, the Court concludes the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Renteria poses a flight risk and that no conditions could secure his appearance as required.
II. Order
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Government's Appeal (Doc. 9) and Supplement (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED REVOKING Judge Hegarty's Release Order (District of Colorado, 24-MJ-118-MEH, Doc. 7). Defendant Renteria shall remain in custody pending trial.