USA v. Serrano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:25-cr-04138-MLG
ORLANDO MARIO JUDE SERRANO,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER
TO STAY TRANSPORT TO COMPETENCY EVALUATION, TO RETURN
DEFENDANT TO NEW MEXICO, AND TO GRANT DEFENDANT FURLOUGH
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Orlando Mario Jude Serrano’s
Emergency Motion for Order to Stay Transport to Competency Evaluation, to Return Defendant
to New Mexico, and to Grant Defendant Furlough. Doc. 33. The United States opposes Mr.
Serrano’s motion. Id. at 4. The U.S. Marshal does not take a position on this motion. Id. For
the following reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Serrano’s motion.
On September 19, 2025, Mr. Serrano was charged by criminal complaint with possession
with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(A); possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B)(viii); being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924; and possession of a machinegun in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii). Doc. 1. The Court held a
detention hearing on October 3, 2025. Doc. 7. Mr. Serrano waived his right to contest his
detention, Doc. 9, and the Court detained Mr. Serrano because he had not rebutted the
Case 1:25-cr-04138-MLG Document 34 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
presumption that he should be detained because of the nature of the charges he is facing. Doc.
13. On October 7, 2025, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Serrano
charging him with offenses nearly identical to those charged in the criminal complaint. Doc. 17.
On January 29, 2026, Mr. Serrano filed an unopposed motion for a competency evaluation,
which the Court granted the next day. See Docs. 26, 27.
Mr. Serrano now asks the Court to interrupt his transportation to a federal medical facility
for his competency evaluation and instead return him to New Mexico and temporarily release
him, presumably under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), so that he can attend his daughter’s funeral. Doc. 33
at 1. Mr. Serrano has not presented the Court with sufficient reasons to warrant his release.
Mr. Serrano bears the burden of proof under § 3142(i) to show that his temporary release
is “necessary . . . for another compelling reason.” See United States v. Clark, 448 F. Supp. 3d
1152, 1155 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2020); United States v. Reese, 2012 WL 13080791, *2 (D.N.M.
Apr. 2, 2012). The Court has not found a case in this District or Circuit that suggests that the
desire to attend a loved one’s funeral is a “compelling” reason for temporary release within the
meaning of the statute. Unfortunately, many detained defendants lose loved ones while in
custody. Temporary release to attend funerals would drastically increase the use of § 3142(i) and
is not a “compelling” reason that justifies temporary release under that statute. See United States
v. Alderete, 336 F.R.D. 240, 266 (D.N.M. 2020) (relief under § 3142(i) should be used
sparingly).
In addition, as Judge Browning explained:
The decision whether to release a defendant temporarily under § 3142(i) is . . .
intertwined with the factors that the . . . judicial officer consider(s) at the
defendant’s detention hearing[] because the risk of nonappearance and danger to
the community are front and center in the judicial officer’s mind as he or she
Case 1:25-cr-04138-MLG Document 34 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
decides how compelling the defendant’s reason for temporary release is. These
factors never go away.
Alderete, 336 F.R.D. at 269. Mr. Serrano makes little effort to show that he will not flee or pose
a danger to any other person or the community if he is temporarily released other than to suggest
that a Deputy U.S. Marshal could escort him on his furlough, or if unescorted, he will return to
custody. See Doc. 33 at 3. Either way, he promises to pay the U.S. Marshal for the costs
incurred as a result of his plan. See id. at 3–4. This information, however, is not sufficient for
the Court to release him. The pretrial services report shows a criminal history dating back thirty
years, beginning in Mr. Serrano’s childhood. See Doc. 6. at 5–6. Since adulthood, Mr. Serrano
has been convicted of various crimes, including multiple burglary offenses; multiple instances of
receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle; multiple instances of resisting, evading, or obstructing
an officer; being a felon in possession of a firearm, and multiple drug offenses. Mr. Serrano has
not rebutted the presumption that he should be detained, nor has he shown that his temporary
release is necessary for a compelling reason.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Orlando Mario Jude Serrano’s
Emergency Motion for Order to Stay Transport to Competency Evaluation, to Return Defendant
to New Mexico, and to Grant Defendant Furlough. (Doc. 33) is denied.
DATED: March 9, 2026.
__________________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cr-04138-MLG Document 34 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3