UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/28/96
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4135
(D.C. No. 95-CR-208S)
PETER T. BUFFO, (D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court establishing
conditions of pretrial release for defendant following the government’s motion to
revoke release.
Defendant was initially released on a personal recognizance bond in
November of 1995. In May of 1996, after a superseding indictment was handed
down, the government moved to revoke defendant’s bond and order him detained
on the ground there was probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a
crime while on bond.
The magistrate judge conducted an extensive hearing, after which he
ordered defendant’s detention. Defendant then sought review by the district
court, which directed defendant’s release on certain specified conditions.
Defendant then filed a motion to clarify and modify the conditions. Following
further review, the district court entered an order amending the release conditions.
Defendant objects to the conditions of release, arguing that the district
court erred both in determining there was probable cause to believe defendant had
committed a crime while on bond and in imposing more than the “least
restrictive” conditions necessary to reasonably ensure the safety of the community
as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)(B).
-2-
Probable cause as used in 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A) requires only that the
facts available to the judicial officer warrant a man of reasonable caution in the
belief that the defendant has committed a crime while on bail. United States v.
Cook, 880 F.2d 1158, 1160 (10th Cir. 1989)(internal citations and quotations
omitted); United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1990)(same). The
evidence presented to the magistrate judge and reviewed by the district court was
sufficient to establish probable cause.
The district court also carefully considered and reconsidered specific
conditions of release based on an individualized evaluation of this defendant.
Should the need arise, defendant can apply to the district court for further
amendment of these conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3)(judicial officer may
at any time amend release order to impose additional or different conditions).
Appellate review of detention or release orders is plenary as to mixed
question of law and fact and independent, with due deference to the district
court’s purely factual findings. United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355
(10th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Traitz, 807 F.2d 322, 325 (3d Cir.
1986). The district court is in a far better position to determine the release
conditions suitable to this individual defendant as a factual matter than is this
court. See United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 884 (1st Cir. 1990)(“[w]hile
we could, of course, modify the stated conditions if, on the record before us, there
-3-
were minor, self-evident adjustments that would make the release conditions
adequate, an appellate tribunal is at a considerable disadvantage.”).
We have reviewed the district court’s order and determine there is no basis
for defendant’s claims of error. The district court’s order amending the
conditions of release is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-4-