ORDER

JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the Government's appeal of Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman's release order (Doc. 35) and Defendant's motion to strike (Doc. 46). The Court held a hearing regarding the appeal on October 9, 2018.1 In addition to the hearing, the Court reviewed the parties' briefs (Docs. 35, 41), the transcript of the detention hearing before Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 31), and the binder submitted to the Court by the Government.

This Court reviews a Magistrate Judge's detention order de novo. United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990). We review the evidence before the magistrate with no deference and make independent findings. Id. at 1192-93. A defendant will be released prior to trial if the Government does not prove either that the defendant is a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence or that the defendant is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and (g), United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court considers the following factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against the person, the history and characteristics of the person, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

Upon consideration of the briefs, attachments, transcripts, and relevant authority, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Bowman properly analyzed the pertinent facts and legal authority, and correctly found that Defendant is not a serious voluntary risk of flight and that there is a combination of conditions that would reasonably assure Defendant's appearance at future court proceedings. Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Bowman correctly found that the Government had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is a danger to the community. The Court will amend Magistrate Judge Bowman's release order. Defendant shall be subject to location monitoring and a curfew as set by Pretrial Services. Defendant shall not leave Pima County absent permission from the Court. The Court also finds that a third-party custodian would be appropriate in this matter. The Court finds that based on Pretrial Services' Addendum dated October 9, 2018, that Defendant's sister, Yaritza Monreal, would be an appropriate third-party custodian. In light of the text messages regarding potential danger to Defendant's former romantic partner and her current romantic partner,2 the Court will order that Defendant shall not have contact with his former romantic partner, except as authorized by the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County to facilitate their pending family law matter, and shall have no contact with her current romantic partner. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Government's appeal of United States Magistrate Judge Bowman's release order (Doc. 35) is denied. Defendant shall be released, subject to standard conditions, a $25,000 cash bond, a no contact order with the two individuals identified at the hearing, location monitoring, a curfew, restrictions to not leave Pima County, and Yartiza Monreal as a third-party custodian.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to strike (Doc. 46) is granted. The Court finds that the supplemental briefing is moot, untimely, and provides limited information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau for pretrial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 59.