Government's Opposition to Motion to Modify His Release Conditions — United States v. Brugnara (Document 48)

Summary

Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Modify His Release Conditions, filed October 4, 2024 as Document 48 in United States of America v. Luke Brugnara, Case No. 24-cr-00277-MMC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The United States states that it understands the Court has elected to revoke the magistrate's recent order of detention and is not contesting that decision, and requests that the Court keep the defendant's stringent release conditions in place. The filing argues that the defendant's three court appearances do not guarantee future appearance, citing the defendant's Form 12 proceedings before Judge Alsup, and cites United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 887 (1st Cir. 1990). The signature block names Ismail J. Ramsey, United States Attorney, and Ryan Arash Rezaei, Assistant United States Attorney.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

             Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC         Document 48       Filed 10/04/24     Page 1 of 2




 1 ISMAIL J. RAMSEY (CABN 189820)
   United States Attorney
 2
   MARTHA BOERSCH (CABN 126569)
 3 Chief, Criminal Division

 4 RYAN ARASH REZAEI (CABN 285133)
   Assistant United States Attorney
 5
          450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
 6        San Francisco, California 94102-3495
          Telephone: (415) 436-7200
 7        FAX: (415) 436-7234
          ryan.rezaei@usdoj.gov
 8
   Attorneys for United States of America
 9
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
                                NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
                                      SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         )   CASE NO. 24-cr-00277-MMC
                                                     )
14           Plaintiff,                              )   GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO
                                                     )   DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY HIS
15      v.                                           )   RELEASE CONDITIONS
                                                     )
16 LUKE BRUGNARA,                                    )
                                                     )
17           Defendant.                              )
                                                     )
18

19           The United States understands that the Court has elected to revoke the magistrate’s recent order
20 of detention. It is not contesting that decision. But it requests that the Court keep in place the

21 defendant’s stringent release conditions. The conditions that the Court put in place are designed to

22 ensure he does not flee, even though history strongly suggests he ultimately will. And if Luke Brugnara

23 cannot even follow “minor” conditions – like only leaving his apartment to see his lawyer and get his

24 blood pressure checked – there is no reason to think he will follow “major” conditions. Like not

25 absconding from supervision altogether.

26           The defendant contends that his attendance at three court hearings shows he should not be
27 confined to his home. But he similarly appeared in front of Judge Alsup during his Form 12

28 proceedings before ultimately fleeing prior to sentencing. Luke Brugnara’s three appearances in this

     GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION                           1
     24-cr-00277-MMC
            Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC           Document 48        Filed 10/04/24      Page 2 of 2




 1 case do not guarantee his future appearance. Indeed, “[i]f past is prologue, then promises to hew the

 2 straight and narrow will mean next to nothing to this defendant.” United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d

 3 880, 887 (1st Cir. 1990) (concluding the district court erred in ordering a defendant’s pretrial release). If

 4 past is prologue in this case, the defendant will flee at some point: it is not a matter of if, but when. This

 5 is why the United States sought the defendant’s detention in the first place.

 6          Again, the United States accepts that the Court has ordered the defendant released. But keeping

 7 these stringent release conditions in place informs the Court about the defendant’s ultimate designs. If

 8 he keeps violating his release conditions – and he will, of that the United States is sure – it tells this

 9 Court what the defendant will ultimately do as the parties approach trial.
10          When someone violates rules, the solution is not to make those rules disappear. The solution is
11 to enforce those rules. The United States requests that the Court maintain the defendant’s stringent

12 conditions of release.

13

14 DATED: October 4, 2024                                         Respectfully submitted,
15                                                                ISMAIL J. RAMSEY
                                                                  United States Attorney
16

17
                                                                  ________/S/________________
18                                                                RYAN ARASH REZAEI
                                                                  Assistant United States Attorney
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION                            2
     24-cr-00277-MMC


File and source

File

48-opposition-to-defendant-s-motion-to-modify-his-release.pdf

Size

130,841 bytes

SHA-256

950a75880ccc87205c95b3b4809c48e7bfbd4b47850181325590537da6212585

Our copy

48-opposition-to-defendant-s-motion-to-modify-his-release.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)