FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 6, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 20-4044 (D.C. No. 2:20-CR-00085-HCN-1) JOSE LUIS BARRERA-LANDA, (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:20-CR-00085-HCN-1) _________________________________ Submitted on the briefs: * Scott Keith Wilson, Federal Public Defender, Benjamin C. McMurray, Assistant Federal Defender, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellant. John W. Huber, United States Attorney, Felice John Viti, Assistant United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. _________________________________ * 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. Jose Luis Barrera-Landa appeals from the district court’s release order. The district court ordered Mr. Barrera 1 released pending trial subject to the conditions the magistrate judge set in an earlier order. Mr. Barrera does not appeal from that portion of the district court’s release order. As part of its order granting pretrial release, the district court denied Mr. Barrera’s request to enjoin the United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) from detaining or deporting him during the pending criminal proceedings. Mr. Barrera appeals from that portion of the district court’s release order. Exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. This appeal involves the relationship between the detention and release provisions of two statutes: the Bail Reform Act (BRA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3156, and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537. Congress passed the BRA to address whether and under what circumstances a district court may release a defendant pending trial. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 742-43 (1987). The BRA requires the pretrial release of a defendant unless “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)(1). The BRA also contains a temporary detention provision “for persons not lawfully admitted to the United States, as well as individuals who are on pretrial 1 In his appeal brief, counsel refers to defendant-appellant as “Mr. Barrera” so that is how we refer to him in this decision. 2 or post-conviction release on other federal, state, or local charges, so that immigration and other officials can take custody of such individuals before BRA conditions of release are set.” United States v. Soriano Nunez, 928 F.3d 240, 244 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d)). “Other than during this temporary detention period, . . . non-citizen defendants are treated the same as other pretrial criminal defendants under the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals