United States v. Lopez, CR 16-0451 JB

• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. CR 16-0451 JB,CR 16-0451 JB
• Citation: 184 F.Supp.3d 1139
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Mayra Alejandra Lopez, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

184 F.Supp.3d 1139

United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.Mayra Alejandra Lopez, Defendant.

No. CR 16-0451 JB

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed April 21, 2016

Damon P. Martinez, United States Attorney, Edward Han, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Benjamin Gonzales, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Appeal of Detention Order, filed April 11, 2016 (Doc. 25)("Appeal"). The Court held a hearing on April 15, 2016. The primary issue is whether repairing family relationships constitutes an "exceptional reason" to release Defendant Mayra Alejandra Lopez pending sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), which requires the Court to detain criminal defendants found guilty of certain offenses pending sentencing unless the defendant shows that "exceptional reasons" make the person's detention inappropriate. Because repairing family relationships does not constitute an "exceptional reason" under § 3145(c), the Court denies the Appeal and affirms the Honorable Laura Fashing, United States Magistrate Judge's detention order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2016, Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") Special Agent Jarrell Perry had a brief conversation with Lopez and asked to search her purse. See United States' Response to Appeal of Detention Order at 1, filed April 12, 2016 (Doc. 27)("Response"). Inside Lopez' purse, Perry found a bundle that tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. See Appeal at 1; Response at 1. After being taken into custody and being read her rights, Lopez admitted that she was being paid to deliver drugs. See Response at 1-2.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2016, the United States charged Lopez with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), possession of more than 500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. See Criminal Complaint, filed January 15, 2016 (Doc. 2). The Honorable Karen B. Molzen, United States Magistrate Judge, released Lopez to the custody of La Pasada Halfway House in Albuquerque, New Mexico. See Order Setting Conditions of Release at 2, filed January 15, 2016 (Doc. 7). Nearly three months later, on April 8, 2016, Lopez pled guilty before Judge Fashing to the Information charging her with a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See Plea Agreement, filed April 8, 2016 (Doc. 23). After entering Lopez' guilty plea, Judge Fashing heard argument on Lopez' request to remain on conditions of release pending sentencing. See Motion to Remain on Conditions of Release Pending Sentencing at 3, filed April 7, 2016 (Doc. 19)("Motion to Remain on Conditions of Release").

Lopez argued that she should be released to her mother's custody. See Motion to Remain on Conditions of Release at 2-3. She explained that her relationship with her mother has been strained for the past four years, but that her arrest facilitated communication with her mother again. See Motion to Remain on Conditions of Release at 3. Judge Fashing observed that 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) requires her to detain Lopez pending sentencing unless Lopez establishes "exceptional reasons" why remand into custody is inappropriate. Plea Minute Sheet at 1, filed April 8, 2016 (Doc. 24). Judge Fashing found that Lopez did not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk, but concluded that Lopez had not established exceptional reasons why she should not remain in custody. See Appeal at 2-3. Judge Fashing therefore denied Lopez' Motion to Remain on Conditions of Release. See Appeal at 3. Judge Fashing granted Lopez one week to turn herself into the United States Marshals Service's custody so that she could appeal the decision to detain her. See Appeal at 3.

In her Appeal, Lopez describes her good performance on supervision at La Pasada Halfway House. See Appeal at 2. She explains that her "pretrial services officer initiated an investigation of a possible release of her to the third party custody of her mother, Maria Olga Lopez, in San Bernardino, California, during the pendency of her case." Appeal at 2. She states that United States Pretrial Services found her mother "to be a suitable third party custodian" and recommended that she be released to her mother's custody. Appeal at 2. She argues that her request to spend time with her mother constitutes an exceptional circumstance, because it "represents a unique chance to repair a previously damaged relationship between mother and child and to eliminate the estrangement that formerly existed between them." Appeal at 3. Lopez contends that this unique circumstance, combined with her "exemplary performance for nearly three months while she was on pretrial supervision and her complete lack of criminal history," warrant her release. Appeal at 4. Lopez concedes, however, that Pretrial Services Officer Christopher Aguilar opposes Lopez' release to her mother's custody. See Appeal at 4-5.

In Response, the United States argues that Lopez "has not met her burden of clearly demonstrating there are exceptional reasons to justify her release pending sentencing." Response at 3. The United States provides a wide-ranging list of circumstances that courts have found unexceptional. See Response at 5-7. The United States contends that repairing her relationship with her mother is not an exceptional reason to remain out of custody. See Response at 8. It acknowledges that Lopez' situation is "sympathetic" and "unfortunate," but nonetheless maintains that it is not exceptional. Response at 8-9.

The Court held a hearing on March 14, 2016. See Tr. of Hearing (taken March 14, 2016)("Tr.").¹ Lopez noted that Judge Fashing found Lopez "neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community." Tr. at 3:5-6 (Gonzales). Lopez acknowledged that release pending sentencing "is rare." Tr. at 5:17 (Gonzales). In fact, she stated, she found only "one case that was close to home where release had been requested, granted and then upheld on appeal by the Tenth Circuit": United States v. Mutte, 383 Fed.Appx. 716 (10th Cir.2010). Tr. at 5:18-21 (Gonzales). Lopez compared her situation with the circumstances in United States v. Mutte, and argued that both she and the defendant there complied with their release conditions, had no criminal history, and had community ties. See Tr. at 6:1-15 (Gonzales). Furthermore, she argued that "renewing a relationship with her mother that had been broken for more than four years is exceptional. And it does make her materially different from other defendants in her position." Tr. at 8:1-5 (Gonzales).

The United States recognized that no cases have considered the situation whether repairing family relationships constitutes an exceptional reason under § 3143(c). See Tr. at 10:20-23 (Han). Despite the lack of precedent directly on point, however, the United States argued that numerous cases have held that "mere personal reasons, family hardships, things of that nature, are just not exceptional the way that 3145 intended it to be." Tr. at 10:23-11:1 (Han). The United States described some of the situations that courts have found unexceptional, including a defendant supporting young children or providing financial assistance for aging parents. See Tr. at 11:2-6 (Han). The Court agreed, observing that "this is not the kind of exceptional circumstance that I think the case law or Congress intended." Tr. at 12:8-10 (Court). The Court therefore affirmed Judge Fashing's detention order and her decision to remand Lopez into custody pending sentencing. See Tr. at 12:19-23 (Court).

LAW REGARDING RELEASE PENDING SENTENCING

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2), the Court "shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained." 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2). When a defendant pleads guilty, this mandatory detention provision applies unless: (i) the United States recommends that no sentence of imprisonment should be imposed; and (ii) the Court finds by clear-and-convincing evidence that the defendant is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(a)(2)(A)(ii), (B). Offenses falling under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A) through (C) include cases that involve:

(A) a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed;

(B) an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death;

(C) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq. ), or chapter 705 of title 46;

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1).

If the defendant cannot meet § 3143's requirements, the only way a defendant may remain out of custody pending sentencing is by showing that there are "exceptional reasons why detention would not be appropriate," and by showing by clear-and-convincing evidence that he or she is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Section 3145(c) provides:

(c) Appeal from a release or detention order. —An appeal from a release or detention order, or from a decision denying revocation or amendment of such an order, is governed by the provisions of section 1291 of title 28 and section 3731 of this title. The appeal shall be determined promptly. A person subject to detention pursuant to section 3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in section 3143(a)(1) or (b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person's

...