USA v. Ramirez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jose Alberto Ramirez,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 26-42 (DWF/JFD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jose Alberto Ramirez’s motion to
revoke detention order. (Doc. No. 25.) The United States of America (the
“Government”) opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 30.) For the reasons set forth below, the
Court denies Ramirez’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Ramirez is charged with interstate transmission of a threat to injure the person of
another. (Doc. No. 16.) He was arrested and made his first appearance in the Northern
District of Illinois. (See Doc. No. 13 at 1.) At his initial appearance, the Government
moved for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1). (Doc. No 25-1 at 40.) Magistrate
Judge Beth W. Jantz granted the Government’s motion, finding by clear and convincing
evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably
assure the safety of any other person and the community. (Id. at 42.) Notably, she relied
on Ramirez’s (1) prior criminal history, (2) prior violations of probation, parole, or
CASE 0:26-cr-00042-DWF-JFD Doc. 32 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
supervised release, (3) prior failure to appear in court as ordered, (4) that Ramirez was on
probation, parole, or another kind of release while under supervision, and (5) that
Ramirez’s release “poses serious danger to any person or the community.” (Id.)
Following Magistrate Judge Jantz’s order, Ramirez was transferred to this District.
(See Doc. No. 13 at 1.) He made his initial appearance in this District before Magistrate
Judge David T. Schultz. (Doc. No. 11.) Magistrate Judge Schultz ordered Ramirez’s
continued detention, relying on Magistrate Judge Jantz’s determination. (Doc. No. 13
at 1.) Ramirez now moves to revoke that detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
(Doc. No. 25.)
DISCUSSION
A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order for release or detention de novo.
See United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481 (8th Cir. 1985). A defendant may be
detained pending trial “if the government shows by clear and convincing evidence that no
release condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community
and by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or set of conditions will
reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance.” United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797
(8th Cir. 2003) (citation modified). To determine whether such release conditions exist,
courts consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime; (2) the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and
(4) the seriousness of the danger to the community. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)).
Ramirez argues that these factors weigh in his favor because the alleged threats
were made electronically and did not involve any physical violence or weapons, he has
CASE 0:26-cr-00042-DWF-JFD Doc. 32 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
been successful on his most recent term of probation other than the instant accusation,
and he has a stable job and support system. (Doc. No. 25 at 10-13.) The Government
focuses on Ramirez’s criminal history and his conduct when he was arrested on the
complaint in this case, including stating that “once he was released, law enforcement
would never see him again.” (Doc. No. 30 at 5, 8-11.)
Having considered the § 3142(g) factors, the Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that no conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community and by
preponderance of the evidence that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably
assure Ramirez’s appearance. Although Ramirez has a support system, a stable job, and
has been more successful on his recent term of probation, the Court cannot overlook his
history and the nature of the alleged offense in this case. First, Ramirez’s criminal history
is significant and includes violent crimes. Those offenses did not occur so long ago that
they are irrelevant to the current assessment, as Ramirez seems to suggest. Second,
Ramirez has an extensive record of failing to appear for court proceedings and prior
probation violations. Third, the messages Ramirez allegedly sent to the victim in this
case are serious and indicated that he knew the addresses of the victim’s family members.
Fourth, his statement on arrest that “law enforcement would never see him again”
bolsters the Court’s concern that he will fail to re-appear in this case. Lastly, the fact that
Ramirez was on probation at the time this offense was allegedly committed weighs
against him. Accordingly, the Court denies Ramirez’s motion to revoke the detention
order.
CASE 0:26-cr-00042-DWF-JFD Doc. 32 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Defendant Jose Alberto Ramirez’s motion to revoke detention order (Doc. No. [25])
is DENIED.
Dated: March 23, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cr-00042-DWF-JFD Doc. 32 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 4