United States v. Salazar-Andujo

599 F.Supp.3d 491

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Omar SALAZAR-ANDUJO, Defendant.

EP-21-CR-01833(2)-DCG

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

Signed April 19, 2022

Ellen Marie Denum, U.S. Attorney's Office, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the Government's "Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Releasing Defendant on Personal Recognizance, Motion for De Novo Detention Hearing in the Western District of Texas, and Motion for Stay of Release Order" ("Motion") (ECF No. 60). At this time, the Government is only requesting that the Court stay Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza's order releasing Defendant Omar Salazar-Andujo on personal recognizance,¹ and that the Court hold a de novo detention hearing. The Government advises the Court that it will later submit a brief in support of its argument that Defendant should be detained without bond. For the reasons the follow, the Court GRANTS the Government's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2022, in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. Defendant was indicated on five counts: (1) conspiracy to smuggle goods from the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 554 ; (2) dealing Firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) ; (3) again dealing firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) ; (4) providing false information on records required to be maintained by a federal firearms licensee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) ; and (5) again providing false information on records required to be maintained by a federal firearms licensee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).

Authorities arrested Defendant in New Mexico on April 11, 2022. On April 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Garza, sitting in the District of New Mexico, held a detention hearing. Judge Garza orally denied the Government's motion to detain Defendant without bond and ordered Defendant released. Judge Garza orally set bond on April 18, 2022. Defendant was released later that day. The Government now seeks a stay of Judge Garza's release order.

The Government wants a stay of the release order so that Defendant remains in custody prior to a de novo detention hearing. According to the Government, Defendant should be detained without bond. In support of this position, the Government asserts that Defendant is both a flight risk and a danger to the community. Defendant is a flight risk, the Government alleges, because he is a permanent resident of the United States and a citizen and foreign national from Mexico. The Government contends Defendant maintains strong ties to Mexico.

Defendant presents a danger to the community, the Government asserts, because he is accused of dealing firearms without a license and having conspired to smuggle at least ninety weapons from the United States to Mexico.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Court's Authority to Issue a Stay of Release Order from a Different Jurisdiction

As an initial matter, the Court must decide whether a district judge can stay a release order issued by a magistrate judge of a different jurisdiction. Review of releases orders are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145. In relevant part, the statute states:

(a) Review of a release order.—If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of the court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than Federal appellate court—

(1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release; and

(2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendments of release.

The motion shall be determined promptly.

18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) (hereinafter " section 3145").

By its plain language, the statute authorizes a district judge to review a magistrate judge's release order. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1). But the statute is silent on the question of which district is the appropriate one to issue a stay of a magistrate judge's release order.² Is the authority to grant a stay with the district court of the jurisdiction in which the magistrate judge sits, or is it with the district court of the jurisdiction where a defendant allegedly committed the offense and was indicted?

The Fifth Circuit has not had the occasion to directly address this question. The Fifth Circuit has, however, determined that a district court has the authority to stay a magistrate judge's release order, even though section 3145 does not expressly provide that authority. United States v. Brigham , 569 F.3d 220, 230 (5th Cir. 2009). In so holding, the Fifth Circuit noted the importance of a stay order to the exercise of the district court's authority to substantively review a magistrate judge's release order:

[G]iven that the issue being reviewed involves a person's release from custody pending further legal proceedings, the absence of stay authority could render the district court's review power illusory. Specifically, if the district court disagrees with the magistrate judge's determination regarding release versus detention, but no stay is in place, the person in question may have harmed the community or disappeared by the time the district court's ruling is rendered and detention is ordered.

Id. at 230.

This language strongly suggests that the power to stay a release order is coupled with a district court's authority to substantively review a magistrate judge's release order. Further legal proceedings—that is, those beyond the initial detention hearing—will take place in the district where a defendant committed the alleged offense. See, e.g., United States v. Cabrales , 524 U.S. 1, 6, 118 S.Ct. 1772, 141 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) ; Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. If the stay and review authority are coupled, it stands to reason that a district judge in the jurisdiction where the offense took place would have the authority to issue a stay of a release order, even if the release order was issued by a magistrate judge in a different jurisdiction. See United States v. Vega , 438 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that the language of section 3145 should be read as limiting "review to the court where charges are pending"). As the Fifth Circuit stated, "the absence of stay authority could render the district court's review power illusory." Brigham , 569 F.3d at 230 ; Vega , 438 F.3d at 803 ("[I]t is the court where the charges are pending that is responsible for any rulings that may be necessary to guarantee the defendant's presence for proceedings.").

Other circuits have addressed the question of which district has section 3145 authority. In Vega , for example, the defendant was charged in the Eastern District of Virginia, arrested in the Northern District of Illinois, and brought before a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois, who granted release on bond. 438 F.3d at 802. The government filed for a stay of the release order in the Eastern District of Virginia, which the district judge granted. Id. The defendant then filed an emergency motion in the Northern District of Illinois seeking immediate release, which the judge denied for lack of jurisdiction. Id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district judge's order in the Northern District of Illinois, holding that review of the release order is required "in the district court where prosecution is pending." Id. at 803. In holding this way, the Seventh Circuit recognized the authority of the Eastern District of Virginia to enter a stay on the release order issued by a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Seventh Circuit does not stand alone. Other circuits courts have persuasively reasoned that section 3145 authority lies with the district court where the defendant allegedly committed the offense.

The Second Circuit, in United States v. El Edwy , said:

Section 3145(a) ... permits the court that will ultimately decide the question [of detention or conditional release] to adjudicate it in the first instance, without waiting for the defendant's ultimate appearance in the district. The district court of the district of prosecution is not required to rely on the judgment of a magistrate judge in another district as to whether the defendant can be trusted to appear under an order of release.

272 F.3d 149, 153 (2d Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Munchel , 991 F.3d 1273, 1278–85 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (reviewing the District Court for the District of Columbia's stay and review of release order entered by a magistrate judge in the Middle District of Tennessee); United States v. Cisneros , 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003) ; United States v. Torres , 86 F.3d 1029, 1031 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting, with a stay issued by a district court of another jurisdiction, that "[t]he plain language of section 3145 dictates that the district court with original jurisdiction over the offense, i.e. , the prosecuting district ... is the only proper one to review [a release order]"); United States v. Evans , 62 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 1995).

The two lines of reasoning discussed above support the proposition that the district court in the district where charges are pending can enter a stay of a release order issued by a magistrate judge of a different jurisdiction. First, the principle stated by the Fifth Circuit in Brigham —that "the absence of stay authority could render the district court's review power illusory"—supports that the district court in the district where charges are pending ought to be able to protect its review authority by issuing a stay of release order. Combining this principle with the holdings of other circuits that say that the district court where charges are pending has the authority to review a release order even when a release order was issued by a magistrate judge of a different jurisdiction, supports this Court's finding that it has the...