United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
BOND PENDING SENTENCING
H. Hennessy United States Magistrate Judge
Ulfany Mateo Soto (“Defendant”) has filed a
motion styled Renewed Motion for Release on Bond. (Docket No.
211). The government has filed an opposition. (Docket No.
214). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
December 1, 2016, the Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Defendant with the commission of narcotics offenses.
(Docket No.1). On the same date, the court issued a warrant
for Defendant's arrest. (Docket No. 4). Agents arrested
Defendant on December 13, 2016, and Defendant assented to a
voluntary order of detention at his arraignment later that
day. (Docket No. 13). Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion in
support of release and, on January 23, 2017, the Court held a
detention hearing at which it received testimony, reviewed
documents and wiretap evidence, and heard arguments of
counsel. (Docket Nos. 54-56). Defendant faced up to twenty
years' imprisonment for the crimes charged. The Court
denied the motion for release in an oral decision dictated
from the bench. (Docket No. 58). On June 16, 2017, Defendant
moved for a Rule 11 hearing, which District Judge Stearns
ultimately calendared for July 17, 2017. (Docket Nos. 100 and
115). The Rule 11 hearing did not take place. On July 12,
2017, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment.
(Docket No. 138). Among other amendments, the superseding
indictment alleged that Defendant was accountable for five or
more kilograms of cocaine and therefore faced a mandatory
minimum jail sentence of ten years and a maximum sentence of
life. Id. The Rule 11 hearing was re-calendared for
September 26, 2017. (Docket No. 148). On July 31, 2017,
Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration for Release on
Bail; on August 7, 2017, the United States filed its
opposition. (Docket Nos. 165 and 176). The Court treated that
motion as a motion to reopen the detention hearing -
Defendant not citing the Court to any law authorizing a
subsequent detention hearing - and found that Defendant had
failed to proffer information that was unknown to Defendant
and had a material bearing on the issue of release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). Accordingly, the
motion was denied. (Docket No. 184).
October 25, 2017, Defendant appeared before District Judge
Stearns and pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.
(Docket No. 210). According to the plea agreement, Defendant
pleaded guilty to two narcotics crimes, but not to an amount
that triggered the mandatory 10 year minimum jail sentence,
and now faces a maximum of twenty years' incarceration on
each of the crimes to which he pleaded. (Docket No. 207
¶¶ 1 and 2). Judge Stearns accepted Defendant's
plea, remanded Defendant to the custody of the U.S. Marshal,
and set sentencing for January 31, 2018. (Docket No. 210).
his plea, Defendant filed the instant motion for release on
bond pending his January 2018 sentencing. (Docket No. 211).
provision of the Bail Reform Act, which is not mentioned or
cited by Defendant, disposes of the instant motion. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143 addresses release or detention pending sentence.
In relevant part, it provides:
judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found
guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and is
awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained
(A) (i) the judicial officer finds there is a substantial
likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be
(ii) an attorney for the Government has recommended that no
sentence of imprisonment be imposed on the person; and
(B) the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a
danger to any other person or the community.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).
turn, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(C) references “an
offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years
or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act . . .
.” Defendant cannot show that his case qualifies for
the exception to remand mandated by Section 3143. As the
procedural history recounted above shows, as a result of his
plea, Defendant has been found guilty of an offense described
in subparagraph (C) of section 3142(f)(1), namely, Conspiracy
to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Attempt to
Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine. (Docket Nos. 138
and 210). He awaits imposition of sentence and faces up to
twenty years' incarceration on each count of conviction.