United States v. Carlos Alberto Moncada-Pelaez
Opinion
Pending before this court is appellant Moncada-Pelaez’ (“Moneada”) emergency motion for bail pending completion of his trial. Because the district court correctly determined that Moneada should be detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(e), we deny the instant motion.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: Moneada was arrested on November 4, 1986 and charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. That same day Magistrate Palermo ordered that Moneada be held in temporary pretrial detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(d)(1)(B). This section permits a Magistrate to order the detention of an illegal alien for a period of ten days. 1 Moneada conceded that he was *1009 an illegal alien and thus subject to temporary detention.
Thereafter, ten days later at a hearing on November 14, 1986, Magistrate Sorenti-no ordered that Moneada be held in detention prior to trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(f). 2 On January 6, 1987, following various proceedings not relevant to the instant appeal, the original pretrial detention order was affirmed by the district court. This emergency appeal ensued.
On appeal, appellant contends that the court’s November 14 hearing was untimely. 3 Section 3142(f) ordinarily requires that a detention hearing be held immediately upon the defendant’s first appearance before a judicial officer, although certain continuances of up to five days are expressly allowed by the section. See United States *1010 v. Malekzadeh, 789 F.2d 850, 851 (llth Cir.1986); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467 (llth Cir.1985). Therefore, considered by itself, the ten-day delay between Moncada’s arrest and the November 14 hearing might seem to violate the statutory provision. However, during that ten-day period Moneada was lawfully detained pursuant to the temporary detention provisions of 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(d). The statute permits this temporary detention in order to permit the court to notify other legal authorities who might have a reasonable interest in the custody of the detainee. Thus, because of Moncada’s illegal status, he was properly detained in order to permit the court to notify the appropriate officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The issue presented is whether the ten-day delay, which is permitted under sec. 3142(d)(1)(B), violates sec. 3142(f). The plain language of the statute leads us to conclude that it does not. Section 3142(d) provides that “if the official fails or declines to take the person [detained] into custody during [the ten-day] period, the person shall be treated in accordance with the other provisions of this section.” This language makes clear that an order of temporary detention does not preclude separate consideration of detention pending trial under subsection (f). When the government is entitled to obtain a temporary ten-day detention and a hearing is then held to determine whether a further detention is necessary pending trial, the defendant has not suffered any additional loss of liberty. He has been validly detained pursuant to subsection (d) and the delay in affording him a subsection (f) hearing in no way aggravates that detention.
The interpretation we adopt today has been uniformly followed by the other circuit courts of appeal which have considered the issue. See e.g., United States v. Vargas, 804 F.2d 157 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bercerra-Cobo, 790 F.2d 427 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Lee, 783 F.2d 92 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Alat-ishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C.Cir.1985). Consequently, we hold that detention without bail until trial need not be demanded at the first appearance of an alien at a temporary detention hearing, but may be sought by the government at a subsequent hearing held within the ten-day temporary detention. 4 Accordingly, in the instant case, the hearing was timely.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court judgment refusing to release Moneada on bail pending trial.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
810 F.2d 1008 (United States v. Carlos Alberto Moncada-Pelaez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.