Case: 20-40872 Document: 00515906802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-40872 June 21, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Rocha Villaurrutia,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-212-5
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Carlos Rocha Villaurrutia appeals the district
court’s order revoking the magistrate judge’s order of pretrial release and
detaining Villaurrutia pending trial. An indictment charged Villaurrutia with
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40872 Document: 00515906802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-40872
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; conspiring to manufacture and
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine knowing that it would be
unlawfully imported into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963;
manufacturing and distributing five kilograms or more of cocaine knowing
that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 959 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; conspiring to commit money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and conspiring to obtain aircraft registration
certificates by falsifying and concealing material facts, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 and 49 U.S.C. § 46306.
“Absent an error of law,” we will uphold a district court’s pretrial
detention order “if it is supported by the proceedings below,” a deferential
standard of review that we equate with the abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). When, as here, the district court considers
whether to revoke a magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order, “the district
court acts de novo and must make an independent determination of the proper
pretrial detention or conditions for release.” Id. at 585. We review questions
of law de novo, United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006), and
factual findings supporting an order of detention for clear error, United States
v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).
The Bail Reform Act provides that a person shall be released pending
trial unless a judge finds that “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of
any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e); see United States
v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). In this case, a rebuttable
presumption arose that no condition or combination of conditions would
reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at trial and the safety of the
community because an indictment charged Villaurrutia with “an offense for
which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed
2
Case: 20-40872 Document: 00515906802 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-40872
in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).” § 3142(e)(3)(A);
see United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987).
Villaurrutia contends that the district court erred by finding that (1)
he failed to rebut the presumption under § 3142(e) and (2) there were no
conditions of release that would reasonably assure the safety of the
community and his appearance at trial. He also asserts that the Government
refused to recommend that he be released on bail because he was no longer
cooperating with the Government and that, as a result, he was denied his
right to counsel and due process of law.
The record does not support Villaurrutia’s assertion that the district
court shifted the Government’s burden of persuasion to him. See Hare, 873
F.2d at 798. The district court found that Villaurrutia failed to rebut the
presumption, but the record reflects that the district court weighed the
presumption along with the evidence presented at the hearing in determining
whether conditions of bond would reasonably assure Villaurrutia’s
appearance and the safety of the community in light of the factors of
§ 3142(g). In addition to considering the nature and circumstances of the
charged offenses, which allegedly involved complex schemes facilitated by
Villaurrutia and others to move significant quantities of cocaine, the district
court considered Villaurrutia’s personal and financial ties to Mexico. The
district court also expressly acknowledged Villaurrutia’s supportive family
and community ties and reviewed the numerous letters of support submitted
on Villaurrutia’s behalf. However, the court implicitly found that
Villaurrutia’s family and community ties did not outweigh other proper
considerations.
The record does not reflect that the district court committed any error
of law or clearly erred by concluding that Villaurrutia was a flight risk. See
Olis, 450 F.3d at 585; Aron, 904 F.2d at 223. Thus, we need not address the
3
Case: 20-40872 Document: 00515906802 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-40872
district court’s determination that the safety of the community could not
reasonably be assured if Villaurrutia were released. See United States v.
Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 1985).
As for Villaurrutia’s constitutional challenges, they appear to rest on
the premise that, because one codefendant who cooperated with the
Government was ordered released pending trial, Villaurrutia’s own
detention pending trial is the result of his failure to cooperate with the
Government and is being used to induce him to enter a guilty plea. These
contentions are speculative and unavailing. Villaurrutia has not
demonstrated that any provision of the Bail Reform Act is unconstitutional
on its face or as applied to him. Neither has he shown that the district court’s
decision to deny him pretrial release was based, in any part, on his failure to
cooperate with the Government.
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
4