{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "Case 1:21-cr-00249-WJ Document 306 Filed 06/02/23 Page 7 of 16",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "hearing, a judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The government bears the burden of proving flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 (10th Cir. 2003). A district court's review of a Magistrate Judge's order of detention is de novo. See Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 616.\n\nSection 3142(e)(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combinations of conditions exist to reasonably assure a defendant's appearance or the safety of the community where there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). As the Tenth Circuit has held:\n\nOnce the presumption is invoked, the burden of production shifts to the defendant. However, the burden of persuasion regarding risk-of-flight and danger to the community always remains with the government. The defendant's burden of production is not heavy, but some evidence must be produced. Even if a defendant's burden of production is met, the presumption remains a factor for consideration by the district court in determining whether to release or detain.\n\nUnited States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991).\n\nHere, although Mr. Robertson is subject to a presumption of detention due to his § 924(c) charge, see Doc. 86 at 1–2, the Court finds that he has successfully rebutted the presumption. He has produced evidence, for example, that he is not a danger to the community nor a flight risk because he voluntarily turned himself in on the instant offense, despite consistently maintaining his innocence and knowing the extremely long prison sentence he faced if convicted. Doc. 274 at 5. He has also produced evidence that he will not flee the jurisdiction due to his family's presence here. Id. And he has produced evidence that his placement at La Pasada Halfway House is a condition of release that could reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "hearing, a judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The government bears the burden of proving flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 (10th Cir. 2003). A district court's review of a Magistrate Judge's order of detention is de novo. See Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 616.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Section 3142(e)(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combinations of conditions exist to reasonably assure a defendant's appearance or the safety of the community where there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). As the Tenth Circuit has held:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Once the presumption is invoked, the burden of production shifts to the defendant. However, the burden of persuasion regarding risk-of-flight and danger to the community always remains with the government. The defendant's burden of production is not heavy, but some evidence must be produced. Even if a defendant's burden of production is met, the presumption remains a factor for consideration by the district court in determining whether to release or detain.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, although Mr. Robertson is subject to a presumption of detention due to his § 924(c) charge, see Doc. 86 at 1–2, the Court finds that he has successfully rebutted the presumption. He has produced evidence, for example, that he is not a danger to the community nor a flight risk because he voluntarily turned himself in on the instant offense, despite consistently maintaining his innocence and knowing the extremely long prison sentence he faced if convicted. Doc. 274 at 5. He has also produced evidence that he will not flee the jurisdiction due to his family's presence here. Id. And he has produced evidence that his placement at La Pasada Halfway House is a condition of release that could reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community.",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Robertson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Tenth Circuit",
      "La Pasada Halfway House"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2003",
      "1991"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 924(c)",
      "Doc. 86",
      "Doc. 274",
      "932 F.2d 1353",
      "328 F.3d 610"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the detention of a defendant named Mr. Robertson. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}