United States v. Castorena, 4:19CR3140. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20200109e18
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2020
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . The defendant has moved for an order requiring pretrial services to investigate the possibility of release with a third-party custodian. (Filing No. 21). The proposed third-party custodian is Defendant's brother who lives in El Paso, Texas. At the time of his detention hearing, Defendant was proposing release to return to his own home in El Paso, Texas. That request was denied because Defendant has substantial contacts in Mexico, limited contacts
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . The defendant has moved for an order requiring pretrial services to investigate the possibility of release with a third-party custodian. (Filing No. 21). The proposed third-party custodian is Defendant's brother who lives in El Paso, Texas. At the time of his detention hearing, Defendant was proposing release to return to his own home in El Paso, Texas. That request was denied because Defendant has substantial contacts in Mexico, limited contacts w..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant has moved for an order requiring pretrial services to investigate the possibility of release with a third-party custodian. (Filing No. 21). The proposed third-party custodian is Defendant's brother who lives in El Paso, Texas.
At the time of his detention hearing, Defendant was proposing release to return to his own home in El Paso, Texas. That request was denied because Defendant has substantial contacts in Mexico, limited contacts with Nebraska, and a history of frequent travel to Mexico, including to visit his long-term girlfriend who lives in Mexico. (Filing Nos. 10 & 20). Defendant need not have a passport to cross the border at that location. (Filing No. 10).
The court is not convinced that living with a brother in El Paso, rather than in his own residence within that city, will sufficiently ameliorate the risk of his nonappearance if released.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion, (Filing No. 21), is denied.
Source: Leagle
