Memorandum in Support of Appeal of Magistrate's Order — USA v. Brugnara (Dkt. 45, N.D. Cal.)

Summary

A notice of motion and motion appealing a stayed detention order, with supporting memorandum, filed September 11, 2024 as Document 45 in United States v. Luke Brugnara, Case No. 24-cr-00277-MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, set for hearing before Judge Maxine Chesney on September 18, 2024. Defense counsel Matthew Dirkes appeals the order of Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros revoking pretrial release at the September 5, 2024 bond hearing, which was stayed pending the appeal. The memorandum states that Brugnara was released on August 8, 2024 and that revocation rested on a single violation: a stop at a storage facility on the way to an attorney-client meeting. It argues under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b) that Brugnara has appeared at every hearing since release and should remain on pretrial release.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Cite this document

“Memorandum in Support of Appeal of Magistrate's Order — USA v. Brugnara (Dkt. 45, N.D. Cal.).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-in-support-of-appeal-of-magistrate-s-order-usa-v-brugnara-d-d9ec6957a9/, SHA-256 8e7c2ffe7ab2676767373c55622350efdb7cfae52bd5c0bd92c594fd962dc2c1.

Full text

Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 5

1 Matthew Dirkes (State Bar No. 255215)
matt@illovskygates.com
2 ILLOVSKY GATES & CALIA LLP
1611 Telegraph Ave., Ste. 806
3
Oakland, CA 94612
4 Telephone: (415) 500-6640

5 Attorneys for Defendant
Luke Brugnara
6

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
Case No. 24-cr-00277-MMC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
14 APPEALING STAYED DETENTION
v. ORDER
15
LUKE BRUGNARA, Judge: Hon. Maxine Chesney
16
Court: 7, 19th Floor
Defendant.
17 Date: September 18, 2024
Time: 2:15 p.m.
18

28
APPEAL OF STAYED
DETENTION ORDER
Case No.: 24-cr-00277-MMC
Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 5

1 NOTICE OF MOTION
2 TO THE COURT AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 18, 2024, at 2:15 p.m., in the Courtroom of
4 the Honorable Maxine Chesney, United States District Court in and for the Northern District of

5 California, San Francisco Division, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 7, San Francisco,

6 California, 19th Floor, defendant Luke Brugnara will appeal to this Court the stayed detention order

7 issued by the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros.

8 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, on the accompanying
9 memorandum, the pleadings and papers filed in this matter, and on other such arguments or evidence

10 as the Court shall deem proper.

28
i APPEAL OF STAYED
DETENTION ORDER
Case No.: 24-cr-00277-MMC
Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 5

1 Luke Brugnara submits this brief in support of his appeal of the Magistrate Court’s order
2 revoking pretrial release. ECF No. 44.

3 At the bond hearing held September 5, 2024, the Magistrate Court revoked Mr. Brugnara’s
4 pretrial release. Counsel for Mr. Brugnara indicated that the order would be appealed to this Court

5 and the Magistrate therefore stayed its order until this Court could hear the appeal, scheduled for

6 September 18, 2024.

7 The order revoking release was imposed solely on the basis of a single violation of release
8 conditions. ECF No. 40. According to Pretrial Services, Mr. Brugnara violated a condition when, as

9 a passenger in a car, he and the driver stopped at a storage facility on the way to undersigned

10 counsel’s office for an attorney-client meeting, as authorized by the Magistrate Court’s prior Order

11 Setting Conditions of Release and Appearance Bond. ECF No. 38.

12 Mr. Brugnara respectfully submits that the single alleged violation, which no one claims
13 involved any unlawful conduct, should not be a basis to incarcerate him, especially given his

14 presumption of innocence, presumption of pretrial release, and compliance with the sole purpose of

15 his release conditions: that he appear for court hearings. The single violation does not establish that

16 Mr. Brugnara is unlikely to abide by his conditions going forward.

17 I. Legal Standard
18 This Court reviews detention de novo, “without deference to the magistrate’s ultimate
19 conclusion.” United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990). Revocation of pretrial

20 release may be appropriate where the Court concludes that the person violated a condition of release

21 and that “the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.”

22 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). In determining whether a set of conditions exists that will reasonably assure

23 Mr. Brugnara’s future appearances, the Court may consider the available information concerning the

24 nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence, the history and

25 characteristics of Mr. Brugnara, and the record concerning appearance at court proceedings. 18

26 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

28
1 APPEAL OF STAYED
DETENTION ORDER
Case No.: 24-cr-00277-MMC
Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 5

1 II. Background
2 Mr. Brugnara was released pretrial on August 8, 2024. ECF No. 38. The singular issue
3 animating the pretrial detention proceedings has been whether a set of conditions exists that would

4 reasonably assure Mr. Brugnara’s appearance at future court hearings.

5 On August 23, 2024, Pretrial Services filed a Violation Memorandum alleging that Mr.
6 Brugnara violated a condition of his release by stopping at a storage facility while on his way to an

7 attorney-client meeting at undersigned counsel’s office. ECF No. 40. Attorney visits are permissible

8 reasons for him to leave his residence. ECF No. 38. The Magistrate Court held a bond hearing on

9 September 5, 2024, and revoked Mr. Brugnara’s pretrial release because of the one stop at the storage

10 facility. ECF No. 44. The Magistrate also stayed the detention order “until [Mr. Brugnara’s] appeal

11 of the revocation order can be heard” by this Court. Id.

12 Since his release more than a month ago, Mr. Brugnara has appeared at both hearings in this
13 case, once for a status before this Court on August 14, 2024, and once before the Magistrate Court.

14 ECF No. 44. For the latter hearing, Mr. Brugnara came to court even though he knew that Pretrial

15 Services and the government both sought to have him detained at the hearing.

16 III. Mr. Brugnara Should Be Permitted to Remain on Pretrial Release
17 Mr. Brugnara has demonstrated that he is not a flight risk and that a combination of conditions
18 exists that will ensure his appearance at future court proceedings. He has appeared at the hearings

19 held since his release. He generally has complied with the strict release conditions imposed upon

20 him. Those conditions, for example, prohibit him from leaving his small studio (in a single-room

21 occupancy hotel) to exercise or even to go to the grocery store. Despite those restrictions, Pretrial

22 Services has filed only one Revocation Memorandum, which alleged only one violation of the release

23 conditions. ECF No. 40.

24 That violation does not establish that Mr. Brugnara will not comply with “any condition or
25 combination of conditions of release” going forward. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). To the contrary, Mr.

26 Brugnara has been able to abide by his release conditions and, more importantly, has appeared for his

27 court proceedings, which is the only reason the conditions were imposed in the first place.

28
2 APPEAL OF STAYED
DETENTION ORDER
Case No.: 24-cr-00277-MMC
Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/11/24 Page 5 of 5

1 CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons stated, Mr. Brugnara respectfully requests that he be permitted to remain on
3 pretrial release.

5 ILLOVSKY GATES & CALIA LLP
Dated: September 11, 2024
6
_/s/Matthew Dirkes_________________
7 Matthew Dirkes

8 Attorney for Defendant
Luke Brugnara
9

28
3 APPEAL OF STAYED
DETENTION ORDER
Case No.: 24-cr-00277-MMC

File and source

File: 45-memorandum-in-support-of-appeal-of-magistrate-s-order.pdf
Size: 168,200 bytes
SHA-256: 8e7c2ffe7ab2676767373c55622350efdb7cfae52bd5c0bd92c594fd962dc2c1
Our copy: 45-memorandum-in-support-of-appeal-of-magistrate-s-order.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)