ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOEL SALCEDO'S MOTION TO REVOKE DETENTION ORDER

Re: Dkt.No. 127

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

Defendant Joel Salcedo is charged with two violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012) (conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, 100 grams or more of heroine, and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (2012) (possession and transfer of a machine gun). Dkt. No. 10 at 8. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to revoke the detention order entered on December 5, 2016 by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145. Dkt. No. 127. The government opposed the motion, Dkt. No. 139, and Defendant replied, Dkt. No. 144. Applying the de novo standard of review, the Court independently determines whether Defendant's detention is appropriate, without any deference to Judge Westmore's evidentiary findings or her ultimate conclusion. See United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-50 (2012), requires that the government prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no conditions that reasonably will assure the Defendant's appearance as required, and that the government prove by clear and convincing evidence that there are no conditions which reasonably will assure the safety of the community. See id. § 3142(f); United States v. Aitken, 898 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir. 1990). Where there is probable cause to believe that the defendant violated the Controlled Substances Act and faces a maximum of 10 years or more in prison, there is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions reasonably will assure the defendant's appearance as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A). The presumption of detention shifts the burden of production to the defendant; the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the government. See United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). The presumption retains evidentiary weight, id., and the defendant must show "some credible evidence" to rebut it, United States v. Chen, 820 F.Supp. 1205, 1207 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Close cases should result in release: "[t]o give effect to the principle that doubts regarding the propriety of release be resolved in favor of the defendant, the court is to rule against detention in close cases." Id. at 1208 (citing United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405-06 (9th Cir. 1985)).

In evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the history and characteristics of the person (including his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug and alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings), and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); Motamedi, 767 F.2d at 1407.

The Court has carefully reviewed the papers filed in connection with this motion, including a transcript of the October 27, 2016 detention hearing before Judge Westmore reflecting the parties' respective oral proffers. Based on this review, the Court finds that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and independently reaches the same conclusion as Judge Westmore. Without granting Judge Westmore's ruling any deference, the Court agrees that in light of Defendant's history, the nature and circumstances of the instant offense and the weight of the evidence, Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that he presents a danger to the community, and that there are no conditions or combinations of conditions which reasonably would assure the community's safety if he were released. The Court finds it highly significant that the government has proffered evidence that Defendant was involved in incidents involving violence on May 13 and July 20, 2004, March 9, 2007 and March 4, 2008. The July 2004 incident in particular, in which Defendant repeatedly stabbed a woman in the head and body with a barbeque fork, and punched, bit, choked and head-butted her, involved extreme violence. The Court also finds it highly significant that the government proffered evidence that when police searched the defendant's residence on May 1, 2015, they found a bulletproof vest; that the defendant was intercepted on May 14, 2016 on a wiretapped phone call discussing his use of a silenced, automatic weapon; and that when police searched his house on August 24, 2016, they found a 30-round rifle magazine, a rifle buttstock and a grip. Based on its review of the totality of the record, the Court therefore DENIES Defendant's motion to revoke Judge Westmore's order of detention pending trial. The hearing set for February 6, 2017 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.