United States v. Ernesto Moreno
2017 WL 2240299
5th Cir.2017Background
- Moreno, California resident, was indicted in the Eastern District of Louisiana for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and arrested in the Central District of California (CDCA).
- CDCA magistrate released Moreno on $50,000 bond with conditions including drug testing; Moreno tested positive for multiple drugs and entered outpatient counseling.
- Shortly after the positive test, Moreno was arrested in California after being found in a luxury vehicle with methamphetamine, other controlled substances, and cash; California charges followed.
- Eastern District magistrate held a detention hearing, found probable cause that Moreno committed a felony while on release and that no conditions would assure community safety or appearance, and ordered detention.
- The Eastern District district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s detention order; Moreno appealed raising four claims (merits of detention, local-rule violation, judicial-ethics/email issue, and denial of evidentiary hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merits of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3148 | Moreno argued the CDCA release conditions, ties to California, court appearances, lack of felony convictions, and proposed treatment rebut danger/flight risk findings | Government argued Moreno violated release conditions, committed new drug offenses while on release, lacks ties to the Eastern District, and poses a danger/flight risk | Affirmed: evidence supported probable cause of a felony while on release, triggering a rebuttable presumption of danger; district court did not abuse discretion in detaining Moreno |
| Violation of Eastern District Local Rule 5.2 | Rule requires the magistrate who sets initial conditions to handle subsequent detention matters; Moreno contends Eastern District should have deferred to CDCA MJ | Government says Rule 5.2 governs intra-district assignment and does not require transfer between districts | Rejected: reviewed for plain error and no clear/obvious violation shown; district court interpretation was reasonable |
| Judicial-ethics / law clerk email about filing deadline | Moreno asserted the clerk’s email showed bias toward the government and prejudiced him by prompting a late government filing | Government and court note the email is not in the record and Moreno never moved to supplement the record | Foreclosed: email not in the record; appellant’s failure to include prevented review |
| Right to evidentiary hearing in CDCA (due process/equal protection) | Moreno argued he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in CDCA and that denial violated Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment rights | Government argued no basis shown; district court and appellate court found briefing insufficient | Waived: argument inadequately briefed and thus forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992) (standard of review for pretrial detention orders)
- United States v. Cordova-Soto, 804 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved appellate claims)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Narvaez, 38 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (appellant’s duty to provide record parts for appellate review)
- United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1989) (waiver for inadequately briefed arguments)
- United States v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012) (deference to district court’s application of local rules)