USA v. Chavez-Gutierrez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Criminal Case No. 18-cr-00328-PAB-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
2. LAURA LYNN JARAMILLO,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Laura Lynn Jaramillo’s Motion
for Revocation or Amendment of New Mexico Magistrate Judge’s Order of Detention
[Docket No. 117] of Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea’s Order of Detention Pending
Trial [Docket No. 70 at 24], entered on October 23, 2018 in the District of New Mexico,
where the defendant was arrested pursuant to a District of Colorado arrest warrant.
The United States has filed a response [Docket No. 127].
Defendant seeks revocation of the magistrate judge’s detention order under 18
U.S.C. § 3145(b) and requests a de novo hearing. Docket No. 117 at 9.
Requirements for Detention Under the Bail Reform Act
Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant may be detained pending trial only if a
judicial officer 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). The government bears the burden of proof
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 7

at a detention hearing. Id. The government must prove risk of flight by a
preponderance of the evidence and must prove dangerousness to any person or to the
community by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
In deciding whether there are conditions of release that would assure the
appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community, the magistrate judge
must consider the following factors:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including
whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a
Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled
substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including --
(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family
ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the
community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or
alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at
court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person
was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing,
appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or
local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release. . . .
Count One of the indictment charges the defendant, among others, with a
conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. This count carries a
ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(3)(3)(A), Count One has a rebuttable
presumption of pretrial detention. In order to overcome this presumption, a
2
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 7

defendant must produce some evidence to rebut the presumption. United States
v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir. 1991). Althoug h a defendant may
present such evidence, the Court may nevertheless take the presumption into
account as a factor in determining whether detention is appropriate. The
defendant is also charged with three other counts (use of a communications
device in connection with drug trafficking; interstate travel in aid of racketeering;
and possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine).
The Order of Detention [Docket No. 70 at 24-26] found that the rebuttable
presumption of detention applied and concluded that the g overnment proved by
clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of
release would reasonably assure the safety of the community and proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance. The magistrate judge
additionally found that (a) the weight of the evidence against the defendant was
strong; (b) she was subject to lengthy detention if convicted; (c) she had a
criminal history; (d) she had a previous failure to appear; and (e) she had
previous violations of probation, parole, or supervised release. Id. at 25-26.
The standard for the district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s
detention order under Section 3145(a) is de novo. United States v. Cisneros,
328 F.3d 610, 616 n.1 (10th Cir. 2003). T he Court may conduct such review by
reviewing the evidence that the magistrate judge based his detention decision on
3
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 7

and, in its discretion, by reviewing any additional proffers on appeal. United
States v. Davidson, 1992 WL 144641, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 18, 1992).
The defendant’s motion for review is based on the following arguments:
(a) the charges against her do not involve firearms or explosives and are not
crimes of violence; (b) while the defendant is in good mental condition, she has
been on Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) since 1985; ( c) while the
defendant has no ties to Colorado, she has lived in Las Cruces, New Mexico for
the last 27 years, her adopted grandson lives with her, and her daughter, who is
willing to accept custody of her, lives in Las Cruces; (d) while the defendant is
not working now, she would seek part-time employment if placed in a halfway
house; (e) the defendant has no financial resources to flee, but does have
sufficient resources to commute to Colorado for court appearances; and (f) most
of defendant’s criminal history is stale and most of her failures to appear were
due to her being in the hospital at the time. Docket No. 117 at 2-4.
Charges
The defendant is correct that the charges against her do not involve
allegations that she possessed firearms and are not crimes of violence.
Nevertheless, the charges are serious. For example, Count One carries a ten-
year mandatory minimum. Moreover, based on the proffer in the government’s
response, Docket No. 127, the Court finds that the government’s evidence that
the defendant was a drug courier for the drug trafficking organization charged in
the indictment is strong. The proffer indicates that the defendant was stopped
on August 4, 2017 transporting seven kilograms of cocaine from Las Cruces to
4
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 7

Denver, after having driven another load of suspected narcotics from Las Cruces
to Denver on July 30, 2017. Id. at 4-6.
Community Ties
The defendant has no community ties to Denver or to Colorado. Although
she has community ties to Las Cruces, Docket No. 117 at 7-8, the defendant’s
proposal to release her to the custody of her daughter in Las Cruces would
require the defendant, on her own, to travel between Las Cruces and Denver
during the winter. The government’s proffer indicates that, at the time of the
traffic stop on August 4, 2017, the defendant had no driver’s license or
insurance. The motion does not indicate how she would travel to Denver if
released on bond; it merely says that she would “commute.” Id. at 7. The fact
that she is on SSI is a neutral factor. Her receiving disability does not seem to
have prevented her from traveling between Las Cruces and Denver, but there is
no evidence that she has traveled that route during the winter. The Court finds
that, in light of the vagueness of her travel plans, her more recent failures to
appear, and the significant time she is facing if convicted, her community ties to
Las Cruces would not ensure her appearance in this case.
Defendant’s Criminal History
The defendant has a lengthy criminal history, although most of her
convictions occurred in the 1990s. Docket No. 97 at 6-12. T he defendant claims
that the convictions from the 1990s occurred during a time when she was
addicted to heroin. Docket No. 117 at 8. T he Pretrial Services Report, however,
5
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 7

does not indicate any conditions related to substance abuse treatm ent
associated with her sentences for these cases. More relevant is the fact that the
defendant has at least two failures to appear in the last six years. Docket No. 97
at 11.
Conclusion
Reviewing de novo the proffers made on appeal by both sides and the
Pretrial Services Report prepared by the District of New Mexico for the detention
hearing, the Court finds that there that is no combination of conditions that will
reasonably assure the safety of the community and the appearance of the
defendant. While the defendant has rebutted the presumption of detention, the
government has shown clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has
been involved in trafficking cocaine, which involvement presents a danger to the
community. Her danger to the community is further evidenced by the proffer
that, when she was stopped on August 4, 2017 on Interstate 25 in Colorado
carrying seven kilograms of cocaine, she did not have insurance or a valid
driver’s license and had her grandson in the vehicle with her. Docket No. 127 at
6. These circumstances demonstrate extremely bad decision making. The
defendant’s failures to appear also demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant poses a risk of flight, even if she were released to a
halfway house in Colorado. Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge
Sweazea that the defendant should be detained until trial.
Wherefore, it is
6
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 7

ORDERED that Defendant Jaramillo’s Motion for Revocation or
Amendment of New Mexico Magistrate Judge’s Order of Detention [Docket No.
117] is denied.
DATED December 31, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
7
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 129 filed 12/31/18 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 7