Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Opposition — United States v. Luke Brugnara, N.D. Cal. (Document 29)

Summary

The United States' supplemental memorandum in support of its opposition to the defendant's oral motion to revoke the magistrate's detention order, filed August 5, 2024 as Document 29 in United States v. Luke Brugnara, Case No. 24-CR-277 MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Submitted after hearings on July 17 and 31, 2024, it argues under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) that Brugnara should stay detained because he has fled federal supervision on four separate occasions, including a conviction for escape and two escape notices from a halfway house in 2024. The government proposes detention until Brugnara shows his behavior has changed, after which the Court could consider release. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Ryan Arash Rezaei.

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

Full text

             Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC          Document 29       Filed 08/05/24      Page 1 of 3




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

 4 RYAN ARASH REZAEI (CABN 285133)
   ALEXANDRA SHEPARD (CABN 205143)
 5 Assistant United States Attorney

 6           450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
             San Francisco, California 94102-3495
 7           Telephone: (415) 436-7200
             FAX: (415) 436-7234
 8           ryan.rezaei@usdoj.gov

 9 Attorneys for United States of America
10                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11                                 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12                                        SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        )   CASE NO. 24-CR-277 MMC
14                                                    )
             Plaintiff,                               )   UNITED STATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL
15                                                    )   MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS
        v.                                            )   OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S ORAL
16                                                    )   MOTION TO REVOKE MAGISTRATE’S
     LUKE BRUGNARA,                                   )   DETENTION ORDER
17                                                    )
             Defendant.                               )
18                                                    )
                                                      )
19

20           The United States submits this memorandum in light of the hearings held on July 17 and 31,
21 2024, relating to the defendant’s oral motion to revoke the magistrate’s order detaining him pending

22 trial. See Dkts. 27 and 28 (minute entries on defendant’s motion to revoke order of detention).

23           The United States maintains its position that the defendant should be detained pending trial based
24 on the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Among the factors the Court must consider is the

25 defendant’s “record concerning appearance at court proceedings.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A). And

26 in that regard, the defendant’s record is abysmal. He has fled federal supervision in one form or another

27 on four separate occasions, each time requiring the diversion of law enforcement resources to find him.

28 The defendant was actually convicted of escape at trial, after infamously running from the federal

     GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF                 1
     24-CR-277 MMC
30
            Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC           Document 29        Filed 08/05/24     Page 2 of 3




 1 courthouse. Last year, Judge Alsup found that the defendant absconded from supervision shortly before

 2 he was to be sentenced for violations of his supervised release. Then, just months ago, the Bureau of

 3 Prisons filed two escape notices after the defendant arrived at the halfway house to serve the remainder

 4 of his federal sentence. There is no reason to think this time will be any different. The Court said it best

 5 at one of the recent hearings: when things do not go his way, the defendant takes matters into his own

 6 hands. It’s only a matter of time before something in this case does not go the defendant’s way and he

 7 takes matters into his own hands. No ankle monitor is going to change that.

 8          The United States appreciates the Court’s sentiments about how things might be easier if the

 9 defendant was released. The United States had to consider that very question when it moved for the
10 defendant’s detention and when it decided to charge the defendant in the first place. Things would have

11 been easier if the United States did neither of those things. But just because it’s easier doesn’t make it

12 right. The United States felt it was right to charge the defendant and move for detention and so it did so,

13 despite knowing how difficult things might prove to be.

14          The last thing the Court should consider here is release. And not just because of the defendant’s

15 history of escape and non-appearance, which favors detention. The Court must also consider the

16 message it sends to both this defendant and other defendants if it orders the defendant’s release: behave

17 poorly and make life as difficult as possible for everyone around you—for the Court, the Marshals, jail

18 personnel—and you will be rewarded with release. That is the opposite of the message the Court should
19 be sending to this defendant and to others.

20          On the matter of detention, Judge Hixson got it right: the defendant should be detained pending

21 trial. And if the defendant feels Judge Hixson got it wrong, the Court can give him an opportunity to

22 prove it while he’s in custody. Let him prove that he can behave himself while in custody and let him

23 do so for a not-insignificant period. And if he does that, the Court could then consider the changed

24 circumstances that might justify the defendant’s release. The United States is skeptical that he will be

25 able to contain himself; the defendant’s misbehavior in the short amount of time since he returned to

26 California in May 2024 has resulted in two escape notices and his removal from Santa Rita Jail and

27 transfer to San Francisco County Jail. But under this approach, the defendant is given a chance. The

28 ball is in his court.

     GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF                  2
     24-CR-277 MMC
30
            Case 3:24-cr-00277-MMC         Document 29       Filed 08/05/24     Page 3 of 3




 1          The government’s proposed approach—detention until the defendant demonstrates that his

 2 behavior has actually changed—strikes a balance between the Court’s and the parties’ collective interest

 3 in moving this case along expeditiously and the government’s concern that the defendant will abscond,

 4 for the fifth time.

 5

 6 DATED: August 5, 2024                                       Respectfully submitted,

 7                                                             ISMAIL J. RAMSEY
                                                               United States Attorney
 8

 9
                                                               /S/ RYAN ARASH REZAEI
10                                                             RYAN ARASH REZAEI
                                                               Assistant United States Attorney
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF               3
     24-CR-277 MMC
30


File and source

File

29-memorandum-in-support-of-opposition-usa.pdf

Size

89,994 bytes

SHA-256

b83962e24cc8265f55ccc5447c76283d1f18f87e6fbefda49b66e89b38e84326

Our copy

29-memorandum-in-support-of-opposition-usa.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)