United States v. Campas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 24-4003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 20, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-4003 (D.C. No. 2:23-CR-00403-DS-1) CHRISTOPHER THOMAS CAMPAS, (D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Christopher Thomas Campas has been charged with one count of attempted

coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and one

count of travel with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). He appeals the district court’s detention order, which overruled

a magistrate judge’s decision to release him pretrial with conditions. Exercising

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 2

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), we remand for further

proceedings.

I. Background

Mr. Campas is a resident of Arizona who was working on a marijuana farm in

Oregon. He interacted online with an undercover agent who was representing

himself to be a father offering his seven-year-old son for sexual activity with adults.

Mr. Campas expressed interest in engaging in sexual acts with the young boy, and the

parties arranged to meet up in Utah for that to happen. Mr. Campas was arrested at

the meeting location.

A magistrate judge conducted a detention hearing. The government focused

on the nature and circumstances of the charges, as well as Mr. Campas’s statements

after his arrest in which he expressed his belief that he wasn’t doing anything wrong

and that minors could consent to sexual activity with adults. The government also

noted that it had found through investigation that Mr. Campas was engaged in

conversations with other undercover agents about his sexual interest in children. And

the government expressed concern that when a person is released it is difficult to

limit the ability to engage in this type of conduct online. For these reasons, the

government argued there were no conditions that could protect the public if

Mr. Campas was released pretrial.

In response, Mr. Campas’s attorney emphasized that Mr. Campas had no

criminal record, and so whatever his alleged beliefs were and whatever other

discussions he had online, this was the first time he had acted out. Counsel also

2 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 3

noted that Mr. Campas has family support and could live with his brother. Counsel

then identified a number of conditions that could be imposed on release, including

requiring Mr. Campas to actively seek employment, limiting contact with minors, and

installing software on Mr. Campas’s phone to monitor his communications.

The magistrate judge emphasized the serious nature of the charges against

Mr. Campas and the allegations about Mr. Campas’s belief system but noted there

was no indication he had ever acted on his interest in sexual activity with children

and further noted he had no criminal record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

magistrate judge determined Mr. Campas could be released pretrial because there was

not enough to show that he posed an “unmanageable risk.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 51.

The magistrate judge also imposed “very strict conditions,” id., on Mr. Campas,

including:

• Requiring him to maintain or actively seek employment or participate in an educational program.

• Requiring him to live with his brother in Tucson.

• Requiring him to turn in his passport.

• Prohibiting him from viewing, accessing, or possessing any sexually explicit materials of any sort—even content related to adults.

• Prohibiting him from contact with individuals under 18 years of age without supervision of an adult who is previously approved by the court.

• Requiring him to participate in a location restriction program, which the magistrate judge described as being subject to “home detention,” id. at 56.

• Subjecting him to GPS monitoring.

3 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 4

• Requiring him to participate in a computer and internet monitoring program.

• Restricting his computer access solely to what is approved for employment.

See id. at 51-57.

The government sought review of the magistrate judge’s release decision

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), and the district court held a hearing. The

government did not present any new evidence at the hearing but instead continued to

emphasize the seriousness of the allegations in the indictment and Mr. Campas’s

statements after his arrest. The government also argued for the first time that

Mr. Campas presented a flight risk. Mr. Campas submitted two letters from his

brothers attesting to his character and their willingness to support and supervise him

if he was released pretrial. Defense counsel argued Mr. Campas should not be judged

solely on the allegations in the indictment, and further argued the court could impose

conditions of release on him, as the magistrate judge had. Counsel restated the

conditions the magistrate judge had previously imposed and asserted they were

“conditions that are routinely imposed.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 75.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court stated it was basing its

decision on the conversations between Mr. Campas and the undercover agent, its

“experience with these types of cases in the past,” and its “great respect . . . for [the

magistrate judge].” Id. at 78. The court then found that Mr. Campas should be

detained pending trial. After so finding, it also expressed the belief that the evidence

against Mr. Campas was “very strong.” Id. The court then asked the government to 4 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 5

prepare an order for the court to sign. The court subsequently entered a short, written

detention order that adopted the findings made on the record at the hearing.

Mr. Campas now appeals the detention order.

II. Analysis

The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, sets out the framework for evaluating

whether pretrial detention is appropriate. In general, persons charged with a crime

are not detained pretrial. See id. § 3142(b). But for some charges, including the

charges against Mr. Campas, there is a rebuttable presumption “that no condition or

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as

required and the safety of the community.” § 3142(e)(3)(E). “Once the presumption

is invoked, the burden of production shifts to the defendant.” United States v.

Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354 (10th Cir. 1991). But “the defendant’s burden of

production is not heavy,” and only “some evidence must be produced.” Id. at 1355.

“However, the burden of persuasion regarding risk-of-flight and danger to the

community always remains with the government.” Id. at 1354-55. Even if a

defendant rebuts the presumption, it remains a factor for consideration in the

detention decision. Id. at 1355. The government bears the burden of proving risk of

flight 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).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the judicial officer must consider four factors in

making the detention decision: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense

5 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 6

charged, including whether the offense . . . involves a minor victim”; “(2) the weight

of the evidence against the person”; “(3) the history and characteristics of the

person”; and “(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the

community that would be posed by the person’s release.” A detention order must

include “written findings of fact and a written statement of the reasons for the

detention,” § 3142(i), but a reviewing district court can state its reasons for detention

“in writing, or orally on the record,” Fed. R. App. P. 9(a). When the government

seeks review of a magistrate judge’s release order under § 3145(a), the district court

conducts a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s release order. Cisneros,

328 F.3d at 616 n.1.

We review a district court’s pretrial detention decision de novo because it

presents mixed questions of law and fact. Id. at 613. And we review the underlying

findings of fact for clear error. Id.

Mr. Campas raises four issues on appeal, but we need address only one—his

broader argument the district court erred by failing to make findings required by the

Bail Reform Act. He contends “the record below suggests that the district court

ignored at least three of the four mandatory considerations under § 3142(g).” Aplt.

Memo. Br. at 23-24. He argues “the district court failed to consider any conditions of

release, and summarily concluded that detention was appropriate.” Id. at 24. And he

further asserts that because “the record on appeal is devoid of any grounds for

reviewing the adequacy of the court’s decisions below[,]” remand is necessary. Id. at

25. We agree with Mr. Campas that the district court failed to make sufficient factual

6 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 7

findings regarding its detention decision at the hearing or in its written order.

We therefore cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of that decision and must

remand to the district court.

The district court’s explanation at the hearing for overruling the magistrate

judge and revoking the pretrial release order was brief. It stated:

Based on my preview, counsel, of this very important case, based on my review of the conversation with the undercover contact, based on my review of the specificity of that conversation, based on my review of experience with these types of cases in the past, and the great respect I have for Judge Oberg, the Court is of the view that there is no fact or set of facts that can guarantee public safety or appearance in this important matter. And I’m accordingly going to find that Mr. Campas be held pending trial in this very important case. I believe the evidence is very strong, and we’ll just see how it unfolds as the case proceeds. Aplt. App., vol. I at 77-78.

We conclude this explanation does not contain adequate factual findings to

support the detention decision. The only § 3142(g) factor the district court addresses

is § 3142(g)(2)—the weight of the evidence—as the court notes its belief that the

evidence is “very strong.” Id. at 78. The court also mentions its review of the

conversation between the agent and Mr. Campas and the “specificity” of that

conversation, id., but it is not clear if that statement also speaks to the weight of the

evidence or to another § 3142(g) factor. Next, the court references its “experience

with these types of cases in the past,” id., but that is not one of the § 3142(g)

considerations. The court then concludes its brief statement supporting its detention

decision by seeming to rely on its “great respect” for Judge Oberg, the magistrate

judge. Id. But the court’s statement is confusing because the magistrate judge

7 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 8

determined Mr. Campas could be released pretrial with conditions yet the district

court reached the opposite conclusion. Finally, the district court misstates the

standard for pretrial detention, stating its view that there is “no fact or set of facts

that can guarantee public safety or appearance in this important matter.” Id.

(emphasis added). But the standard requires the court to consider whether there are

“no condition or combination of conditions” that can reasonably assure the

appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. § 3142(e)(1)

(emphasis added).

Except for § 3142(g)(2)—the weight of the evidence against the person—the

district court failed to address the § 3142(g) factors. And, although the court was

purportedly reviewing de novo the magistrate judge’s release decision, it failed to

discuss that decision or the conditions of release the magistrate judge imposed.

The written detention order does not fill in the necessary findings. Instead, it

creates more confusion.

The written order begins by stating “[u]pon the motion of the government

attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), the court held a detention hearing and

found that detention is warranted.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 30. But that is not an

accurate description of the procedural background of the detention proceedings.

The magistrate judge held the initial detention hearing, see id. at 3, and then after the

magistrate judge granted pretrial release with conditions, the government sought

review of that decision pursuant to § 3145(a), see id. at 16.

8 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 9

The next sentence states “[t]his order adopts herein the court’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law articulated on the record at the hearing, as required by

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i).” Aplt. App., vol. I at 30. But the only finding of fact that can

be gleaned from the district court’s statements on the record at the hearing is that the

weight of the evidence is strong (although even that is stated as a “belie[f],” id. at 78,

as opposed to a factual finding).

The written order next discusses the rebuttable presumption in

§ 3142(e)(3)(E). But other than the government noting this is a case where the

statutory presumption applies, Aplt. App., vol. I at 65, the presumption was not

addressed at the hearing before the district court and no findings were made

regarding the presumption on the record at the hearing, see id. at 64-78. The written

order concludes, however, that “[t]he defendant has not introduced sufficient

evidence to rebut the presumption.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 30. This conclusion is not

supported with sufficient factual findings.

The order next states that “the government has proven by clear and convincing

evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably

assure the safety of any other person and the community.” Id. at 30-31. And “the

government has proven by a preponderance of evidence that no condition or

combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s

appearance as required.” Id. at 31. The order concludes this paragraph by stating

that “[t]he court made findings on the record at the hearing and those findings are

adopted and incorporated herein.” Id. at 31. But the district court did not make

9 Appellate Case: 24-4003 Document: 010111002489 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 10

sufficient factual findings at the hearing regarding possible conditions of release or

Mr. Campas’s danger to the community or risk of flight.

Neither the district court’s statements at the hearing nor its written order

adequately set out its factual findings and the reasons for its detention decision.

When a district court is revoking a magistrate judge’s pretrial release order, as is the

case here, it is especially important that the court provide adequate findings and an

explanation for its detention decision.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we remand for the district court to issue findings of

fact and to explain the reasoning behind the detention decision or, alternatively, to

order Mr. Campas’s pretrial release subject to appropriate conditions.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam