F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 18 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No.97-1035
v. (D.C. Nos. 96-CR-446-1
and 96-CR-448-2)
JAMES IVEY, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
James Ivey appeals from a district court order denying his motion for
revocation or modification of a detention order entered by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Our review of the district
court’s ruling is plenary as to questions of law, giving due deference to the
district court’s factual findings. See United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353,
1355 (10th Cir. 1991). Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see
18 U.S.C. § 3145(c).
Defendant stands charged in the District of Colorado on two separate
indictments involving drug trafficking, conspiracy, and use of weapons charges.
He was arrested in Indiana and brought before a magistrate judge in that district
for an identity and detention hearing. After a hearing, the magistrate judge
ordered defendant detained, concluding that 1) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), a
presumption arose that no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably assure defendant’s appearance and the community’s safety,
2) defendant had offered no evidence to rebut the presumption, and 3) even had
defendant rebutted the presumption, the evidence and information available would
still require his detention, under the factors listed in § 3142(g). Specifically, the
Indiana district court found that defendant posed a serious risk of flight and was a
danger to the community.
-2-
Defendant was returned to Colorado, and moved to reopen the detention
ruling, seeking revocation or modification of the Indiana order. After a hearing,
the district court denied the motion from the bench, also concluding that the
§ 3142(e) presumption applied, that defendant had not successfully rebutted the
presumption, and finding that defendant was both a flight risk and a danger to the
community. The government orally moved for modification of the order,
contending that the § 3142(e) presumption did not apply. The court agreed, but
stated that its alternate findings and conclusions supported its ruling, and ordered
defendant detained. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant claims that the government waived invocation of the
§ 3142(e) presumption, argues that, even if the presumption applies, undisputed
evidence at the hearing rebutted the presumption, and contends that the district
court erred by failing to properly consider less restrictive alternatives. In
response, the government contends that the presumption does apply, defendant
failed to rebut the presumption, and the record shows that lesser restraints would
be inappropriate. We need not decide whether the government waived or
abandoned invocation of the § 3142(e) presumption, see Stricklin, 932 F.2d at
1355, or consider the parties’ arguments about the presumption because we
conclude that, under the alternative analysis, the district court correctly and
properly concluded that defendant should be detained.
-3-
The district court specifically found that defendant was a flight risk and a
danger to the community, based upon his lack of ties to Colorado, probable cause
to believe defendant committed the crimes charged, and the nature of the charges
against him, specifically the use of weapons in connection with drug transactions.
The district court also noted that the Indiana magistrate judge’s opinion was very
persuasive. The record shows that the district court considered all of the evidence
presented, including defendant’s offer to reside at a halfway house. Giving due
deference to these factual findings, and after a thorough review of the evidence,
the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-4-