United States v. Chavez
| Decision Date | 04 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cr-01713-DHU |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON CHAVEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF DETENTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Ramon Chavez's Motion to Reconsider Order of Detention and Set Conditions of Release, filed on December 27, 2022. Doc. 42. The United States opposes Mr. Chavez's motion. Id. at 2, ¶ 14; Doc. 47.[1]For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
On November 17, 2021, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Chavez. See Doc. 4. The indictment accused Mr. Chavez of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. Id. About two months later, Mr Chavez was arrested. See Docket Entry dated January 14, 2022. On January 20, 2022, the Court held a detention hearing. Doc. 18. Mr. Chavez waived his right to contest his detention at the hearing, but stated that he understood he could “ask the Court to reopen my detention hearing at any time before trial if information exists that is not known to me today and that has a material bearing on whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure my appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” Doc. 17. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order of Detention Pending Trial, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required.[2] Doc. 21 at 2. The Court based its decision on Mr. Chavez's prior criminal history, his history of alcohol or substance abuse, his prior failures to appear in court as ordered, and his prior violations of probation, parole, or supervised release. Id. at 2-3. The Court noted that its findings were based only on the pretrial services report. Id. at 3.
On March 31, 2022, Mr. Chavez filed a Motion to Suppress Statements and Physical Evidence, Doc. 26, which the government opposed, Doc. 27. Judge Urias held a hearing on Mr. Chavez's motion on June 29, 2022, Doc. 34, and granted Mr. Chavez's motion on December 1, 2022, Doc. 39. On December 27, 2022, Mr. Chavez filed this motion, asking to be released to the halfway house. Doc. 42 at 2. He asks the Court to reconsider its detention order because “[a]lthough Mr. Chavez has a criminal history, Mr Chavez can safely be supervised in the community and [ ] he is not a flight risk considering that presently, there is no evidence against Mr. Chavez.” Id. at 2, ¶ 13.
First Mr. Chavez has not given the Court a reason to reconsider its original detention order. A Court may grant a motion to reconsider only if it has misapprehended the facts or law a party's position, or to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Motions to reconsider are proper in criminal cases even though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for them. United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (10th Cir. 2011). Mr. Chavez has made no argument that the Court misapprehended anything at the original detention hearing, or that the Court clearly erred in detaining Mr. Chavez, or that release is required to prevent manifest injustice. See Doc. 42.
Second, although a judicial officer may reopen a detention hearing, she may do so only if she “finds that information exists that was not known to the movant [Mr. Chavez] at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Here, there is no question that the suppression of the evidence is relevant to whether Mr. Chavez is a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2) (). Therefore, the Court held a hearing on Mr. Chavez's motion. See Doc. 52. But as the government argued in its response, see Doc. 47, the Court still must consider all the relevant factors in determining whether Mr. Chavez should be detained, including the fact that Mr. Chavez-a felon who had been convicted of several federal drug trafficking crimes-had a loaded gun in his front pocket on October 3, 2021.
As the United States points out, the case of United States v. Cos, 198 Fed.Appx. 727 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) is instructive. In that case, like this case, the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of firearm. Id. at 728-29. The government moved for defendant's detention pending trial based on both risk of flight and dangerousness, and a magistrate judge ordered his detention. Id. at 729. As in this case, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence the officers obtained when they entered and searched the defendant's apartment, which included the handgun that was the subject of the indictment. Id. The district court granted the motion to suppress, and the defendant moved for reconsideration of the order detaining him. Id. And as is the case here, the government appealed the district court's suppression order to the Tenth Circuit. Id. Meanwhile, the district court denied the defendant's request for release pending appeal. Id.
Mr. Chavez's main argument in support of his motion is that there no longer is any evidence against him. See Doc. 42 at 2, ¶ 13. In Cos, the Tenth Circuit held that it was appropriate for the district court to downplay the significance of its suppression order in determining whether the defendant should be detained pending appeal. 198 Fed.Appx. at 730. The Court noted that at a detention hearing, “the district court is permitted to consider the evidence sought to be suppressed as if it were admissible.” Id. As was true in Cos, the gun that is the subject of the indictment in this case still is available as possible evidence at trial; the only question is whether it will be admitted. See id. Consequently, although the Court recognizes that Judge Urias suppressed the gun, the government has appealed that ruling, and whether the gun is admissible at trial still is unknown. However, the gun's admissibility does not change the fact that Mr. Chavez had a loaded gun in his front pocket when he was arrested by local law enforcement officials on October 3, 2021. This factor weighs against Mr. Chavez's release.
At the hearing on Mr. Chavez's motion, Mr. Chavez argued that because the circumstances leading to Mr. Chavez's arrest in this case were less concerning than the circumstances that led to the defendant's in Cos, Mr. Chavez should be released. This, however, is only part of one factor that the Court must consider. Looking at all the factors the Court must consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court finds that Mr. Chavez is both a flight risk and a danger to the community.
As for the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, it is undisputed that Mr. Chavez had a loaded firearm in his front pocket when he was arrested, despite his status as a felon. With regard to the weight of the evidence against Mr. Chavez, the Court did not consider this factor in originally deciding to detain Mr. Chavez, see Doc. 21 at 2, but it notes that if the government is successful in its appeal, the weight of the evidence against Mr. Chavez appears to be quite strong. There is little doubt that Mr. Chavez knew he had a loaded gun in his front pocket and that he had been convicted of a felony, given that he had served ten years in prison on his most recent conviction.
Regarding Mr. Chavez's history and characteristics, Mr. Chavez does not address the pretrial services report at all, see Doc. 42, even though it contains many facts that support the Court's finding that Mr. Chavez is a flight risk. For example, although Mr. Chavez was born in the United States, he mostly was raised in Mexico. See Doc. 15 at 1-2. He continues to have strong ties to Mexico: his parents live in Mexico, his two brothers live in Mexico, and he has two adult children who live in Mexico. See id. In addition, he has no history of employment. His last employment was for two months in 2018. Id. at 2. Before that, he was unemployed because he was in prison. Id. Mr. Chavez also has significant substance abuse issues. He has a history of using alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Id. at 3. His supervision records show that he was diagnosed with Opioid (Suboxone) Use Disorder in 2018. Id.
Mr. Chavez's criminal history further supports the Court's finding that he is a flight risk, and also supports the conclusion by clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to the community. In 2003, Mr. Chavez was convicted in this Court of possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilos of marijuana. Id. at 4. He was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. Id. Once on supervised release, he violated his conditions of release three times. Id. at 4-5. In 2010, Mr. Chavez was convicted in U.S. District Court in Texas for importing 100 kilos and more of marijuana and related crimes. Id. at 5. He was sentenced to ten years in prison followed by ten years of supervised release. Id. He was released from prison in July 2018, and he violated his conditions of release within two months. Id. He was sentenced to another eight months in custody, and was released again on May 31, 2019, apparently without a continuing term of supervised release. See id. Mr. Chavez has not had any regular employment since his release. See id. at 2.
In addition, in August 2021, Mr. Chavez was charged with driving...
To continue reading
Request your trial