USA v. Padilla et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs- 	Case No. 1:25-cr-04419-KWR
ALFONSO MOYA,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL [DOC. 34]
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Alfonso Moya’s Motion to Reconsider
Order of Detention Pending Trial, filed on January 23, 2026. Doc. 56. The United States
opposes Mr. Moya’s motion. Doc. 63. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the
motion.
On October 27, 2025, the Court ordered Mr. Moya detained pending trial based on its
finding that Mr. Moya was both a flight risk and a danger to the community. Doc. 34. The
Court noted that Mr. Moya was charged with a crime—a drug trafficking offense with a
minimum mandatory sentence of ten years—that carries a rebuttable presumption of detention.
Id. at 2. The Court also noted that Mr. Moya was subject to a lengthy period of incarceration if
convicted, that he lacked stable employment, that he had a history of substance abuse, a history
of violence or use of weapons, and a history of prior probation violations. Id. at 2–3. Mr. Moya
also has a previous conviction for trafficking a controlled substance and being a felon in
possession of a firearm. Doc 23 at 5–6. The Court specifically noted in the order of detention
Case 1:25-cr-04419-KWR Document 64 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that law enforcement officers had found 10 firearms in his home, including one that was fully
automatic, and that he knew he was not permitted to have firearms. Doc. 34 at 3.
Mr. Moya now asks the Court to reconsider detention because he “is now eager to fully
regain his sobriety” and he would like to be placed at the Cenikor Foundation Treatment Center.
See Doc. 56 at 1–2. The United States argues that the Court should adhere to its original
decision to detain Mr. Moya because the relevant factors still support that decision. See Doc. 63.
In essence, the United States contends that nothing material has changed since the Court ordered
Mr. Moya’s detention. See id. The Court agrees with the United States.
First, Mr. Moya has not given the Court a reason to reconsider its original detention
order. A Court may grant a motion to reconsider only if it has misapprehended the facts or law,
a party’s position, or to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Motions to reconsider are proper in
criminal cases even though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide
for them. United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1241–42 (10th Cir. 2011). Mr. Moya has
made no argument that the Court misapprehended anything at the original detention hearing, or
that the Court clearly erred in detaining Mr. Moya, or that release is required to prevent manifest
injustice. See Doc. 56.
Second, although a judicial officer may reopen a detention hearing, she may do so only if
she “finds that information exists that was not known to the movant [Mr. Moya] at the time of
the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other
person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Here, although the information about Mr.
Moya’s desire for substance abuse treatment may be new, that information does not have a
Case 1:25-cr-04419-KWR Document 64 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
material bearing on whether Mr. Moya poses either a risk of nonappearance or a danger to the
community. The Court based its detention order on Mr. Moya’s past conduct and the relevant
factors under the Bail Reform Act. Mr. Moya has not submitted sufficient information for the
Court to reopen the detention hearing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Alfonso Moya’s Motion to Reconsider
Order of Detention Pending Trial (Doc. 56) is denied.
DATED this 20th day of February 2026
__________________________________t
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cr-04419-KWR Document 64 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 3