United States v. Soberanes, 2:17-cr-00096

Government moved for pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); court held a detention hearing and issued written findings required by § 3142(i).
Court found that statutory rebuttable presumptions of detention arise under § 3142(e)(2) (previous violator) and § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics/firearm/other listed offenses) based on the charges and the defendant’s criminal history.
The presumption elements included: charged offenses carrying ≥10 years or qualifying under listed categories; prior qualifying federal/state convictions; prior conviction committed while on release; and recentness (within five years) where applicable.
Court concluded the defendant did not introduce sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption; alternatively, even if rebutted, the court found detention warranted after weighing the § 3142(g) factors.
Court found risk to community safety and risk of nonappearance established (clear and convincing evidence for danger; preponderance for flight), citing factors such as strong weight of evidence, prior criminal history, criminal activity while on supervision, history of violence/weapons, substance abuse, unstable ties/residence/employment, and immigration/removal risk.
Defendant remanded to custody of Attorney General/US Marshal, with directions for separation from sentenced inmates and access to counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory rebuttable presumption under § 3142(e)(2) applies	Government: charged crimes and prior convictions satisfy § 3142(e)(2) elements, so presumption of detention arises	Defendant: (asserted) offered evidence to rebut the presumption	Court: Presumption arises and defendant failed to rebut; detention ordered
Whether statutory rebuttable presumption under § 3142(e)(3) applies	Government: probable cause exists for offenses listed in § 3142(e)(3), so presumption arises	Defendant: (asserted) offered evidence to rebut the presumption	Court: Presumption arises; defendant did not rebut or, even if rebutted, detention still warranted
Whether conditions of release can assure community safety	Government: no conditions will reasonably assure safety given history and offense severity	Defendant: (asserted) conditions could mitigate risk	Held: Government proved by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions will assure safety; detention required
Whether conditions can assure appearance at trial	Government: defendant poses risk of nonappearance given prior failures, lack of ties, immigration risk	Defendant: (asserted) release conditions/sureties could ensure appearance	Held: Government proved by preponderance that no conditions will assure appearance; detention required

No published case citations with official reporter references appear in this order.