Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 09-1133
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DANNY REBOLLO-ANDINO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U. S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Raymond L. Sanchez-Maceira on brief for appellant.
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Luke Cass,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
March 6, 2009
Per Curiam. Defendant Danny Rebollo-Andino, charged with
being a participant in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy, appeals
from a district court order denying pretrial bail. Having
conducted an independent review tempered by deference to the
district court's findings, see, e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 895
F.2d 810, 812 (1st Cir. 1990), we affirm. Defendant has not sought
to rebut the presumption of flight and dangerousness that apply in
this context. He instead makes oblique reference to one or more
medical ailments that, on the present record at least, fall well
short of calling the detention order into question.
A superseding indictment charges defendant and 58
codefendants with operating a drug trafficking organization in La
Trocha Ward of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. More specifically, all
defendants are charged with conspiracy and substantive violations
involving possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
crack cocaine and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana within 100
feet of a public youth facility. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846,
860. Defendant allegedly served as a "runner," supplying drugs to
the sellers and collecting the proceeds for delivery to the
leaders. According to the indictment, the runners also supervised
daily activities at the drug distribution points and, together with
the leaders, "would discipline the other members of the
organization by the use of force, violence and/or intimidation."
-2-
At a December 2, 2008 detention hearing, defendant
offered no argument regarding bail but reserved the right to
revisit the issue. The magistrate judge issued an order of
detention that same day, finding by clear and convincing evidence
that no conditions of release would reasonably secure defendant's
appearance or the community's safety. On December 11, 2008,
defendant filed a motion for "de novo bail hearing" under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3145(b). He there requested "home incarceration," stating that
he "suffers from various medical conditions that warrant surgery
[and] that will require treatment and hospitalization that will not
be otherwise available" at the detention facility. Defendant did
not identify his medical ailments, did not provide any
documentation thereof, did not explain why he would be unable to
receive adequate treatment while in detention, and did not discuss
how the requested "home incarceration" would operate. The district
court summarily denied the motion on January 21, 2009, noting that
"no facts" had been alleged warranting a de novo hearing.
Defendant now appeals from this ruling.
The determination that defendant poses a risk of both
flight and danger has not been challenged on appeal and appears
otherwise unexceptionable. We simply note the following. The
indictment provides probable cause to believe that defendant
committed a drug offense carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of
ten years or more. See, e.g., United States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d
-3-
1412, 1416 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Consequently, the
rebuttable presumption in favor of detention applies. See 18
U.S.C. § 3142(e) ("[s]ubject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be
presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the
safety of the community"). Defendant has failed to satisfy his
burden of production by presenting "some evidence" to rebut this
presumption. United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.
1985). And even if he had done so, the presumption would still
carry significant weight here, since defendant's case appears to
resemble the "congressional paradigm," United States v. Palmer-
Contreras, 835 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam), involving
the special risks of flight and danger posed by organized drug
traffickers
With respect to the motion for de novo hearing, the
district court can hardly be faulted for declining to overturn the
bail decision based on defendant's allegation that he has one or
more unidentified "medical conditions." Nor, without some further
explanation of the underlying circumstances, was the court required
to convene an evidentiary hearing. We note that defendant's
appellate brief likewise contains no description of his ailments;
only in his notice of appeal, curiously enough, has he disclosed
that he suffers from an abdominal hernia (and that his daughter
suffers from lymphoma). And even there, he does not explain why
-4-
his detention would prevent him from obtaining adequate treatment
for his hernia condition (and proper care for his daughter).
Should future developments so warrant, defendant retains
the ability to request reopening of the detention issue under §
3142(f) or, in extraordinary circumstances, even temporary release
under § 3142(i). On the present record, however, no error is
apparent.
Affirmed.
-5-