USA v. Carillo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 	25-CR-20097-HLT-TJJ
)
MARCO CARILLO, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION
Defendant Marco Carillo (“Carillo”) is charged with one count of illegal alien in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). At the December 10, 2025
detention hearing, the Government moved to detain Carillo pretrial, arguing he is a danger
to the community. The Court denied the motion and ordered Carillo released on conditions,
but granted the Government’s oral motion to stay the release order pending appeal of the
detention order to the assigned District Judge. This order explains the Court’s reasons for
denying the Government’s motion for pretrial detention.
I. 	Procedural Background
The one count Indictment against Carillo was filed on November 19, 2025 (ECF
No. 11) and Carillo was arrested on November 25, 2025.
Carillo’s 	initial 	appearance 	was 	conducted 	on 	November 26, 	2025. 	On 	the
Government’s motion, Carillo was detained temporarily under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d). On
December 	10, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	conducted 	the 	detention 	hearing 	in 	the 	case. 	The
Government requested detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E), arguing there is no
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 11

2
condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of any other
person and the community. The Government indicated it was not seeking detention on
grounds that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the
appearance of Carillo. Thus, the Government did not present, and the Court did not
consider, any evidence that Carillo poses a flight risk. The Government also acknowledged
that there is not a rebuttable presumption of detention in this case.
The Government presented two witnesses at the detention hearing. Carillo did not
present any defense witnesses. The Court also considered the Pretrial Services Report in
the case, and heard the information proffered and arguments of counsel for both the
Government and Carillo.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge ordered Carillo
released subject to conditions. The Government indicated its intent to appeal that decision
to the assigned District Judge and the undersigned agreed to stay its ruling pending the
appeal. Also as stated at the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned is entering this
Order summarizing and explaining its ruling from the bench.
II. 	Legal Standard
The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, sets out the framework for evaluating
whether pretrial detention is appropriate. It provides the court must order a defendant’s
pretrial 	release, 	with 	or 	without 	conditions, 	unless 	it 	“finds 	that 	no 	condition 	or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 11

3
and the safety of any other person and the community.” 1 In making this determination, the
court must take into account the available information concerning:
(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 . . . . 2
The Bail Reform Act also provides a rebuttable presumption that “no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure” the appearance and the safety of any
other person and the community in certain situations.3 As noted above, however, the
Government has conceded that no rebuttable presumption of detention applies in this case.
1 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
2 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1)–(4).
3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2) and (e)(3).
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 11

4
The Government has the burden to “prove dangerousness to any other person or the
community by clear and convincing evidence.”4 The burden of persuasion regarding risk
of flight and danger to community always remains with the government.5
Because the Government is not arguing that Carillo is a flight risk and is not
claiming a rebuttable presumption of detention applies in this case, this Court must decide
a single issue: Whether the Government has met its burden to show by clear and convincing
evidence that, if Carillo were released, no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.
III. 	Facts
The Indictment charges Carillo with one count of Illegal Alien in Possession of a
Firearm. Specifically, the Indictment alleges that, on February 18, 2025, Carillo while
knowing he was a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States, knowingly
possessed three firearms, described in the Indictment as: 1) an Olympic Arms 5.56x45 mm
caliber firearm, Model M.F.R.; 2) a CMMG 5.56x45 mm caliber firearm, Model MK-4;
and 3) a Hi-Standard .22 revolver.
At the detention hearing HSI Special Agent Tanner Palmer testified Carillo sold two
AR-15 style weapons to an undercover agent on February 18, 2025, and then came back
later that same day to sell a revolver to an undercover agent. Counsel for the Government
proffered that these sales were both audio and video recorded by the Government. Special
4 United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003).
5 United States v. Slayden, No. 17-10154-JWB, 2018 WL 2388908, at *1–2 (D. Kan. May 25, 2018)
(citing United States v. Lutz, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1251 (D. Kan. 2002)).
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 11

5
Agent Palmer testified he determined subsequently that Carillo is illegally in the country.
He also testified that there is an ICE detainer for Carillo so, if released, Carillo would go
into ICE proceedings and be placed into ICE custody. When pressed by defense counsel,
Special Agent Palmer testified it would be incredibly unusual for ICE not to initiate
removal proceedings in such circumstances.6
At the detention hearing, Deputy U.S. Marshall Dent also testified for the
Government. He testified at length regarding the arrest of Carillo at his home on November
25, 2025. 	Law enforcement officers had been surveilling Carillo that day. Ultimately,
Carillo left home in his white Tahoe vehicle and made several stops, including one at a
Little Caesar’s Pizza shop.
Upon Carillo’s return home, Deputy Dent waited until Carillo moved away from his
vehicle and then, while Carillo was on the front porch of the house, called out to him.
Deputy Dent testified he called Carillo by name (Marco) and announced he was a U.S.
Marshal with a warrant. Deputy Dent called out again, telling Carillo to stop and get on the
ground. Deputy Dent testified that Carillo was carrying a pizza or something and appeared
concerned, but he did not comply with the Deputy’s commands and instead stepped inside
the house. A female was also in the house.
6 As it announced during the hearing, the Court is not considering the ICE detainer in its decision,
finding it has little or no bearing on whether Carillo is a danger to others and the community. See United
States v. Peralta, No. 25-10080-JWB, 2025 WL 2444151, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 25, 2025) (finding ICE
detainer had little if any bearing on the flight risk or danger to the community posed by the defendant). See
also United States v. Salas-Urenas, 430 F. App'x 721, 723 (10th Cir. 2011) (an ICE detainer alone does not
justify detention).
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 11

6
During this time, there were up to six law enforcement vehicles at the house with
emergency lights on and a number of law enforcement officers present, all wearing bullet-
proof vests clearly marked as law enforcement officers. After Carillo stepped inside the
house, another law enforcement officer, observing Carillo through the front door, saw him
toss a gun toward the window or door and yelled, “He dropped the gun.” Deputy Dent at
the time misunderstood and questioned whether Carillo still had the gun. Deputy Dent was
near the front door by this time. He grabbed Carillo and pulled him to the ground. The gun
was recovered and contained one round in the chamber. Deputy Dent testified that Carillo
seemed to understand some English.
IV. 	Analysis of Factors
A. 	Nature and circumstances of the offense charged
Carillo is a citizen of Mexico without lawful status in the United States and he is
charged with one count of Illegal Alien in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(5). The Government argues this charge combined with the potential for a second
charge of illegal alien in possession of a firearm stemming from the alleged possession by
Carillo of a firearm at the time of his arrest provides sufficient evidence that Carillo
presents a danger to the community. But there is no evidence that a second charge has been
filed.7 The Court therefore will not consider this “potential” additional charge against
Carillo in its consideration of the nature and circumstances of “the offense charged.”
7 The Government notes this will be a decision for the authorities in the Western District of
Missouri.
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 11

7
There is no rebuttable presumption of detention based upon a single charge of the
sale of three firearms on one day. Nor is there any allegation in this case that Carillo was
also dealing drugs or that he was intoxicated while in possession of the firearms that are
the subject of the Indictment.8 Unlike Slayden and Peralta, there is not another related
charge in addition to the possession of firearms that supports a finding of clear and
convincing evidence of a danger to the community in this case.
Carillo argued that the charged offense occurred on February 8, 2025, but the
Government did not file a complaint at that time or pursue and obtain an indictment until
approximately nine months later. The Court agrees with the defense that this also suggests
the Government was not especially concerned Carillo posed a danger to others and the
community based on the nature of the alleged charge. The Court concludes this factor does
not weigh in favor of detention.
B. 	Weight of the evidence
The Government’s proffer indicates the evidence against Carillo on the charge
against him is strong. The Government noted Carillo is charged with selling firearms to an
undercover agent or agents. And, the Government indicated it has video and audio
recordings of these transactions. This factor weighs in favor of detention.
8 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A) & (B). See Slayden, 2018 WL 2388908, *2 (“[T]he distribution of
methamphetamine, combined with the possession of firearms, represents activities that are inherently
dangerous to the community, as well as the people involved in this sort of illegal activity.”). U.S. v. Peralta,
2025 WL 2444151 (D. Kan. August 25, 2025) (illegal possession of a firearm while intoxicated and with
prior convictions for criminal use of a weapon counsels in favor of detention as such conduct is a danger to
the community).
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 11

8
C. 	History and characteristics of Defendant
As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3), the Court considers numerous aspects of
Carillo’s history and character in evaluating whether there are conditions of release that
would reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of others and the community. The
pertinent factors included under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A) are 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.”
It is undisputed Carillo has significant ties in the community. Carillo has lived in
the Kansas City metropolitan area for the past 28 years and has lived at his current address
for nearly 16 years. He has four adult children, three who live in the United States, and he
maintains close relationships with them. He also maintains close relationships with his
siblings, some of whom reside in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Carillo has been
employed working as a plumber doing “odd jobs” for the past eight months. Prior to that,
he worked with the same contractor for 20 years doing plumbing and painting jobs in the
community.
The Pretrial Services Report lists no prior criminal convictions for Carillo. 9 He has
one prior arrest on April 11, 2024, in Wyandotte County, Kansas for distribution or
possession with intent to distribute heroin/certain stimulants and drug paraphernalia, but
he was released on bond and the charges in that case were later dismissed. Carillo reports
9 It also shows only an active warrant on a misdemeanor “public peace” charge.
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 11

9
weekly alcohol use and occasional use of cocaine and no history of a current or past mental
health condition. There is no evidence Carillo has failed to appear for any prior court
hearings. At the time of the current offense or his arrest, Carillo was not on probation,
parole, or on release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an
offense under Federal, State, or local law. This is a rare case in which the defendant has
essentially no criminal history over nearly three decades living in the Kansas City area.
Based upon the length of time Carillo has lived and worked in the community and his lack
of prior criminal history, the Court finds Carillo’s history and characteristics weigh
significantly against his detention.
D. 	Danger to the community
A federal court must order the release of a person subject to conditions pending trial
unless the court determines that a release will endanger the safety of another person or the
community.10 “The concern about safety is to be given a broader construction than the mere
danger of physical violence. Safety to the community refers to the danger that the defendant
might engage in criminal activity to the detriment of the community.” 11
The 	Government 	relies 	upon 	evidence 	of 	Carillo’s 	alleged 	firearms 	charge
combined with his possession of a firearm at the time of arrest for its argument his release
will endanger the safety of others and the community. While Carillo was carrying a firearm
at the time he was arrested, he otherwise has no violent criminal history and there is no
10 See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b).
11 United States v. Kroeker, No. 22-3092, 2022 WL 2610344, at *4 (10th Cir. July 8, 2022) (quoting
United States v. Cook, 880 F.2d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1989)).
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 11

10
indication he posed a threat to the community over the 28 years he has lived and worked
as a plumber in the Kansas City area.
During Carillo’s arrest, he did not run from or attempt to flee law enforcement. He
stepped into his house and immediately dropped his firearm. He never pointed the firearm
at the law enforcement officers or raised it in a threatening manner. He surrendered
peacefully when the deputy apprehended him. The Government has not met its burden to
show Carillo’s alleged dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and
convincing evidence. This factor weighs against detention.
IV. 	Conditions of Release
The Court finds the Government has not met its burden to show 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.12 Here, the Court
further finds the conditions of release imposed will reasonably assure Carillo’s appearance
as required and the safety of others and the community. The assigned U.S. probation officer
recommended release subject to extensive conditions, including possession of no firearms.
In addition to the conditions recommended by the probation officer, the Court added
conditions that Carillo be subject to a curfew as directed by the probation officer and that
he be subject to location monitoring. Given the history and characteristics of Carillo and
most notably his lack of criminal history over 28 years, the Court finds the extensive
12 The ultimate determination of whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant presents
a danger to others or the community must take into account whether the Court can impose conditions that
will ensure safety.
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 11

11
conditions imposed, as set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release (ECF No. 9),
will reasonably assure the safety of others and the community.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s motion for pretrial
detention is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s oral motion to stay the
release order is GRANTED. This Order and the Order Setting Conditions of Release are
stayed pending appeal of this order to the assigned District Judge.
Dated December 12, 2025 at Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cr-20097-HLT Document 11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 11