U.S. v. Cantu, 91-1408
Decision Date | 06 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 91-1408,91-1408 |
Citation | 935 F.2d 950 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, v. Narcisco CANTU, III, a/k/a Chicho, Petitioner. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William A. McLean, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner.
Terry L. Derden, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.
Before FAGG and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Narcisco Cantu, III, who is under indictment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, appeals from a pretrial detention order issued by the district court 1 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(e). We have jurisdiction to review the merits of such detention orders under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3145(c) and Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Our review is to be completed promptly, without the necessity of briefs. F.R.A.P. 9(a). We apply the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings of the district court but independently review the ultimate conclusion that detention is required because "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person [at trial] and the safety of any other person and the community." Sec. 3142(e); see United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1486-88 (8th Cir.1985) (en banc). We affirm.
The government timely moved for a detention order at Cantu's arraignment. Following an evidentiary detention hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Cantu be released upon specified conditions, see Secs. 3142(c), (h). The government appealed to the district court who granted the government's motion for detention after independently reviewing the record. Cantu then appealed to this court. Without addressing the merits of the detention order, we remanded to the district court because its order did not contain the findings of fact and the statement of reasons for detention required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(i)(1).
Upon remand, the district court again conducted an independent review of the detention hearing record and again issued a detention order. The court made findings that Cantu has a previous drug conviction; that he has twice violated the terms of his probation; that he has been indicted while still on probation for being the source of large amounts of marijuana; that the evidence against him appears to be strong and he faces a substantial prison sentence; and that he lives near the Mexican border and has worked off and on in Mexico for a number of years. The district court concluded that "virtually all of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(g) militate against pretrial release," and that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Redmond, 19-cr-14-CJW-MAR
...offenses, the sheer scale of the drug activity raises a concern about the danger she poses to the community. See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1991) ("[W]e recognize the congressional determination that large scale drug trafficking is a serious danger to the community ......
-
United States v. Knife
...sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of detention, the court looks to the Bail Reform Act factors. See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 1991). i. Nature of the offenses charged The serious nature of the offenses charged weigh against a finding that the detention p......
-
United States v. Kenefick
...sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of detention, the court looks to the Bail Reform Act factors. See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court detention order using Bail Reform Act factors to evaluate whether defendant rebutted the detenti......
-
United States v. Jackson, CR. 20-50006-JLV
... ... Act factors. See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d ... 950, 951 (8th Cir. 1991) ... i ... Nature of the offense ... ...
-
Pretrial release or detention
...standard for the district court’s factual findings. United States v. English , 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Cantu , 935 F.2d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Gaviria , 828 F.2d 667, 668 (11th Cir. 1987). The Fourth Circuit has stated that it reviews the distr......
-
A law of passion, not of principle, nor even purpose: a call to repeal or revise the Adam Walsh Act Amendments to the Bail Reform Act of 1984.
...requirement in contested cases results in a remand. DAVID N. ADAIR, THE BAIL REFORM ACT 4 (3d ed. 2006) (citing to United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 883 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Hooks, 811 F.2d 391,391 (7th Cir. 1987)......
-
Discrimination, coercion, and the Bail Reform Act of 1984: the loss of the core constitutional protections of the excessive bail clause.
...762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985). (132.) See United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 762 (7th Cir. 1985). (133.) See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1991). (134.) See United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 1990). (135.) See United States v. Montalvo-Murillo......