Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bucio

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

September 13, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGIO BUCIO, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Danny C. Reeves, Chief Judge.

         I.

         Defendant Sergio Bucio was arrested in the Northern District of California on August 14, 2019. A detention hearing was held before United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins in the Northern District of California. Magistrate Judge Cousins ordered the defendant released on a $50, 000.00 unsecured bond. The United States then filed a motion for a stay and revocation of release order. [Record No. 473] This Court granted the motion to stay pending a hearing on the motion for revocation of the release order in this district. [Record No. 476]

         Because the § 3142 factors weigh in favor of detaining the defendant pending the resolution of the case, the government's motion to revoke Magistrate Judge Cousins' release order will be granted.

         II.

         Bucio is charged with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), for his alleged role in laundering $800, 000.00 of drug proceeds through a series of structured deposits. [Record No. 475] He is also charged with money laundering through the bulk transfer of the proceeds of illegal drug transactions. [Id.] Testimony presented during the trial of one of Bucio's co-defendants indicates that Bucio held a leadership role in the money laundering scheme. Evidence was presented that Bucio flew in from California to oversee the deposits and accompany some of his co-defendants on a trip to Tennessee for the purpose of structuring deposits in amounts less than reporting requirements at several banking locations. [Record No. 334, pp. 86-87; Record No. 333, p. 151]

         A detention hearing was held in the Northern District of California on August 20, 2019, before Magistrate Judge Cousins. [Record No. 477] The United States sought pretrial detention and moved to transport the defendant in custody to the Eastern District of Kentucky. Magistrate Judge Cousins denied the motion and ordered that Bucio be released on an unsecured bond. The United States then filed a motion to stay and revoke the release order pending a hearing in this jurisdiction. It asserted that Bucio presents a clear risk of flight. [Record No. 473] The undersigned granted a stay until a hearing could be held in this district on the motion for revocation of release order. [Record No. 476]

         Bucio was born in Mexico and has lived in California since he entered the United States in either 2000 or 2001. It appears that he is residing in the United States illegally, although that fact has not yet been determined with certainty. His parents, siblings, and children from a prior marriage reside in California. Bucio was previously charged with kidnapping, but the charge was later amended to false imprisonment. Bucio was sentenced for that lesser offense in 2014, but it is unclear how much time he actually served following the conviction. He has worked as a landscaper and laborer in California for some period of years.

         The United States Pretrial Services Office in the Northern District of California recommended that the defendant be released on a $50, 000.00 unsecured bond. Pretrial Services Officer Jalei Kinder suggested that Bucio may be a flight risk because of his illegal status in the United States and his Mexican citizenship. However, Kinder thought this risk was mitigated because Bucio had significant ties to California, long-term residency in that state, and a prior history of “stable” employment. The officer further explained that Bucio also may pose a danger to the community because of the nature of the instant offense and the prior kidnapping charge. However, Kinder believed the risk could be mitigated with certain release conditions. The California probation officer does not have knowledge of the evidence presented during the trial of one of Bucio's co-defendants in this matter or information provided by other co-defendants at the time of their guilty pleas and sentencing proceedings. Additionally, United States Probation Officer Kevin Riley disagrees with the recommendation of the United States Pretrial Services Office of the Northern District of California.

         A bond revocation hearing was held on September 13, 2019, during which the government proffered evidence that the defendant poses both a risk of non-appearance and a danger to the community. It explained that the defendant is most likely illegally residing in the country which presents a serious risk of non-appearance. Further, the United States asserted that Bucio's recent conviction for unlawful imprisonment (January 15, 2014) was relatively close in time to his offense conduct alleged in this case. The United States also discussed testimony presented during the trial of a co-defendant, indicating that Bucio traveled from California to Kentucky at the behest of a Mexican drug cartel to teach co-defendants how to structure deposits. Additional testimony was presented that Bucio accompanied several co-defendants on a trip from Kentucky to Tennessee to instruct and assist in structuring deposits. Finally, the United States cites Bucio's alleged involvement in one bulk transfer of drug proceeds to an undercover officer. The amount of that transfer exceeded $100, 000.

         Against this evidence, counsel for Bucio asked the Court to consider releasing the defendant on conditions similar to (or in addition to) those imposed by the Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California. According to Bucio's attorney, those conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in the district for future appearances and trial and will also reduce any danger that Bucio presents to the public.

         III.

         If a defendant is ordered to be released by a magistrate judge, “an attorney for the government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145. A defendant may be held pending the resolution of his case only if a judicial officer “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

         “The default position of the law . . . is that a defendant should be released pending trial.” United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). To overcome this presumption, the United States may prove that no conditions of release can ensure the safety of the community and the defendant's appearance in Court. Id. The United States may show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a danger to the community or others. See United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985). Alternatively, it may demonstrate the defendant's risk of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.