United States v. GONZALEZ, 2:11-cr-00410

Indictment charges Rolando and Euclides Gonzalez with conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and, for Euclides, possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more, including a school-zone enhancement.
Magistrate Judges Rice and Strawbridge ordered pretrial detention; the district court conducted a de novo review under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) and heard evidence on September 7, 2011.
Prosecution presented video, ledger, and law enforcement testimony showing a large-scale cocaine trafficking operation connected to a Philadelphia warehouse near a middle school.
Evidence indicated substantial quantities of cocaine (at least 77 kilograms) and ongoing involvement with drug proceeds; defendants’ arrests yielded currency and drug-detection indicators.
There is a rebuttable presumption of detention under § 3142(e)(3)(A) due to the ten-year statutory maximum for the charged offenses, with the burden shifting to the defendants to rebut.
The court found that the government met its burden to show danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and no condition could reasonably assure appearance by a preponderance standard, thus denying detention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause triggers the § 3142(e) presumption	Suppa-based presumption applies given the indictment and offenses.	Presumption can be rebutted by showing conditions and ties to community.	Presumption triggered; probable cause established.
Whether defendants rebut the presumption with credible evidence	Defendants’ ties and employment do not overcome risk to community.	Defendants produced credible evidence of appearance and non-dangerousness.	Defendants rebutted the presumption; jury-style balance considered but not dispositive.
Whether the government proved danger to the community or flight risk by clear and convincing / preponderance standards	Evidence shows substantial risk of flight and danger due to drug-trafficking involvement.	Evidence insufficient to prove danger beyond rebuttal burden.	Government shown danger to community by clear and convincing evidence and no condition reasonably assures appearance by preponderance.
Whether the court should detain or release pending trial	Detention appropriate to protect community and assure appearance.	Release with conditions feasible given ties and history.	Detention denied; the court nonetheless found substantial factors supporting detention.

United States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1986) (presumptive detention framework and deferential treatment to magistrate rulings)
United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3d Cir. 1985) (district court review of magistrate detention orders; de novo standard)
United States v. Carbone, 793 F.2d 559 (3d Cir. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for rebutting detention presumption; factors for rebuttal)
United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156 (3d Cir. 1986) (burden of persuasion after rebuttal; danger vs. flight standards)