Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1823
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
WILFREDO FIGUEROA-ZAPATA,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Maria H. Sandoval on brief for appellant.
H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Lynn M. Doble-Salicrup,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
August 26, 2004
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record and of the
parties' submissions, we affirm the district court's decision
denying the request for pre-trial release. The
defendant/appellant, Wilfredo Figueroa Zapata ("Figueroa"), faces
a controlled substance charge carrying at least a ten-year maximum
sentence; indeed, he faces a possible maximum sentence of life
imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Therefore, it is
presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the safety of the community if Figueroa is
released. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Figueroa's arguments that he
only bought from, and did not sell to, the lead defendant in this
case, and that he dealt no more than five kilograms of cocaine, are
wholly unconvincing.
Figueroa argues that the district court did not, as it should
have, focus on whether he was likely to resume illegal drug dealing
if he were released. Given the evidence presented at the detention
hearing, the district court was not required to conclude that the
conspiracy had shut down or that Figueroa would not resume his
illegal activities if released. We find no error in the district
court's decision that Figueroa had not overcome the presumption.
Figueroa introduced into evidence letters of support from his
family and friends, and he argued that these along with family
medical concerns offered additional reasons to release him pending
trial. This evidence arguably tends to rebut the presumption that
-2-
Figueroa might flee pending trial (though we take no position on
that question); but the district court based its detention decision
on dangerousness, not on the relative risk of flight presented. It
is that decision we review. We see no error in the decision.
We deny as moot Figueroa's motion to reconsider this court's
order extending the government's deadline for filing its brief; and
we note that the extension of time was appropriate, given that the
court also had granted appellant an extension of time within which
to file certified translations in support of his appeal.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-