F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 8 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 01-2128
(D.C. No. CR-01-284-MV)
RICARDO AGUIRRE-TELLO, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The government appeals from the district court’s order releasing defendant
from custody pending trial on an unsecured $10,000 bond and subject to certain
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
conditions. Defendant has not responded to the government’s appeal brief. This
court’s jurisdiction arises from 18 U.S.C. § 3145 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our
review of the district court’s release order “is plenary as to mixed questions 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).
On appeal, the government argues that the district court failed to properly
find defendant a flight risk in light of 1) substantial evidence of defendant ’s guilt
on charges of illegal reentry following commission of an aggravated felony and
subsequent deportation, 2) the likelihood that the INS will again remove him from
the country, 3) the fact that his ties to family and community were a result of his
illegal reentry into this country, and 4) the severity of the penalty defendant faces
for illegal reentry. The government contends that defendant has no incentive to
appear at trial and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably
assure his appearance.
Our review of the district court’s ruling at a hearing on March 28, 2001,
demonstrates that the court considered all of the factors relevant to pretrial
release decisions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), received evidence as to those
factors listed in § 3142(g)(3)(A), and appropriately weighed them against the
remaining factors in favor of defendant’s release, subject to various conditions
-2-
and an unsecured bond of $10,000. The government’s arguments do not
acknowledge the relevance of the factors listed in § 1342 (g)(3)(A) or dispute the
facts supporting the district court’s ruling. On plenary review, we find no fault
with the district court’s ruling and AFFIRM. The government’s motion to
supplement the record on appeal is GRANTED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-3-