United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release. Upon consideration of the Parties’ submissions,  case law, and applicable statutory authority, the Court shall DENY Defendant’s Motion for the reasons expressed below.
On April 2, 2009, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Waldemar Lorenzana Cordon with conspiracy to import over five kilograms of cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 959, 960, and 963. The indictment also carries a criminal forfeiture allegation pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 853 and 970. Defendant remained a fugitive for approximately four-and-a-half years in Guatemala and was arrested on this indictment in Guatemala on September 13, 2013. After fighting extradition for over a year, Defendant was extradited to Washington, D.C. on November 12, 2014. Defendant made an initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on November 13, 2014. At the initial appearance the Government moved to commit Defendant to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General. Defendant did not contest pretrial detention at the time. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Kay ordered Defendant detained. Following the initial appearance, Defendant was paroled into the United States for the purposes of this case and an immigration detainer was placed on Defendant. Defendant has been detained pending trial at the District of Columbia jail.
Defendant filed the present Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release on July 16, 2015, requesting less restrictive supervision. Defendant argues that the following conditions of release will ensure the safety of the community and Defendant’s return to court: (1) electronic monitoring, (2) surrender of travel documents, (3) “intensive supervision” by pretrial services, and (4) participation in the high intensity supervision program. Def.’s Mot., at 2. The Government filed its Opposition on July 28, 2015, and moves for a permanent order of detention. Defendant did not file a Reply to the Government’s Opposition.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A person ordered detained by a magistrate judge may seek review of the detention order in this Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3145. The Court reviews the detention issue de novo. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Pursuant to Section 3142(e)(3)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code, if there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed an offense under the Controlled Substances Act for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more, the Court presumes-subject to rebuttal by defendant-that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community.” To determine whether a defendant has overcome this presumption, the Court takes the following factors into consideration
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a controlled substance;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
A. Nature and circumstances of the offense ...