U.S. v. Vasquez

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Ailon-Ailon

    875 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2017)   Cited 78 times
    Finding that the existence of an ICE detainer did not present a flight-risk

    This is an issue of first impression in this circuit. The district court relied on United States v. Vasquez, 413 Fed.Appx. 42 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished), an Order and Judgment concerning a detainer and reinstated order of removal in the context of 18 U.S.C. ยง 3143, which governs release pending sentencing or appeal. Although it is understandable that the district court applied Vasquez, it contains no analysis of involuntary removal as flight. Indeed, there is only a passing reference to the issue.District courts considering this argument have reached varying conclusions.

  2. United States v. Veloz-Alonso

    Case No. 1:18-cr-464 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 12, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the "conflict only exists because two executive agencies will not cooperate," finding it "perplexing that the executive branch squanders the time and resources it has invested in this issue"

    In a subsequent, published decision, the Tenth Circuit explicitly repudiated the Government's interpretation of flight, and of Vasquez. 413 F. App'x 42 (10th Cir. 2011). Doc. 16 at 5; Doc. 12 at 5-6.

  3. United States v. Sanchez-Martinez

    Criminal Case No. 13-cr-00236-JLK (D. Colo. Jul. 11, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In overcoming this presumption, the defendant has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he will not flee or pose a danger . . . to the community."). See also United States v. Vasquez, 413 Fed. Appx. 42, 43-44 (10th Cir. 2011) (observing that where the defendant was the subject of a reinstated removal order and was awaiting sentencing, it was not necessary to address the various scenarios under which the defendant might be released from ICE custody "because regardless of what is possible, Mr. Vasquez was required to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is not likely to flee (i.e., that he is likely to appear in court when required)."). In order to sustain a motion for detention, the government must establish that (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the defendant's presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community.