United States v. Mora
3:18-cr-00057
D. Nev.May 22, 2025Background
- Angel Diaz was serving a term of supervised release following a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- After an earlier violation and revocation, Diaz was released on supervised release with special conditions, including GPS monitoring.
- On May 5, 2025, a new petition alleged Diaz cut off his ankle monitor and failed to report, leading to his arrest.
- Diaz’s counsel argued that there was no statutory authority for pre-hearing detention in these circumstances, citing the Non-Detention Act.
- The government and court addressed whether the federal rules and relevant statutes authorize detention pending a final revocation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to detain pending revocation hearing | No statute authorizes detention in these circumstances; Non-Detention Act prohibits it | Rule 32.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) authorize detention; consistent with settled law and Ninth Circuit precedent | Court has authority under Rule 32.1 and § 3143(a) to detain |
| Applicability and sufficiency of § 3143(a) | Applies only to those awaiting original sentence; not to supervised release violations | Applies to post-guilt, pre-final adjudication situations like supervised release revocation | § 3143(a) applies to supervised release revocation proceedings |
| Role of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | Rules cannot enlarge substantive rights absent explicit Congressional authority | Rules have force of law and their direction to apply § 3143(a) governs proceedings | Federal Rules are binding and support detention authority |
| Defendant’s eligibility for release | Detention is not justified; open to alternative release conditions | Diaz is risk of nonappearance and danger to community, given history and recent conduct | Diaz failed to meet burden; ordered detained pending final hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994) (district courts must determine eligibility for release pending supervised release revocation under § 3143 standards)
- United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019) (revocation of supervised release is part of the original sentence)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (supervised release violations treated as part of penalty for original offense)
- Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022) (judges have wide sentencing discretion including in supervised release contexts)
- United States v. Cantu, 112 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1997) (court’s contempt power can apply to supervised release violations)
- United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1995) (supervised release is part of criminal sentence)
- United States v. Wing, 682 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2012) (violations subject to criminal contempt)