Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 APPEARANCES: 12 For Plaintiff: 13 14 15 For Defendant: 16 17 18 Court Recorder: 19 20 21 vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA --o0o-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Fresno, California Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:36 P.M. Hearing re: detention and arraignment.

SERGIO PATRICK RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KAREN A. ESCOBAR U.S. Attorney's Office 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 497-4000 DALE A. BLICKENSTAFF Law Office of Dale Blickenstaff 2350 West Shaw Avenue, #132 Fresno, CA 93711 (559) 432-0986 OTILIA FIGUEROA U.S. District Court 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 1501 Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 499-5928 Petrilla Reporting & Transcription 5002 - 61st Street Sacramento, CA 95820 (916) 455-3887

Transcription Service: 22 23 24 25

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2013, 1:36 P.M.

THE COURT:

Calling the first matter on calendar,

United States v. Sergio Patrick Rodriguez, Case No. 13-cr-00109 and we need to wait for Mr. Rodriguez to be brought into court. (Pause - awaiting defendant.) THE COURT: appearances? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Dale If we can please have the parties'

Blickenstaff for Mr. Rodriguez who's present in court with counsel. He's in custody. MS. ESCOBAR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Karen

Escobar for the United States. THE COURT: afternoon Ms. Escobar. Rodriguez. This matter was set over from March 20th for a detention hearing and I believe it was to allow Ms. Serrano to look into the three arrest warrants that were issued in 2012 that Ms. Escobar indicated had been issued and were apparently failure to appear warrants. I don't -- I've spoken with Ms. Serrano and I don't believe she was able to confirm that one way or the other and indicated that she didn't have time to do it before court today because she was out of the office. Good afternoon, Mr. Blickenstaff. And good afternoon to you, Mr. Good

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 3 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct.

I did, however, have an opportunity to review the government's memorandum in support of detention. And have

counsel had an opportunity to review the supplemental bail memorandum? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Your Honor, I did get the I was out yesterday, but I did

memorandum itself this morning.

see the memorandum this morning, and today Ms. Escobar gave me the attachments, what is it, 5 through 10, I think. THE COURT: Yes. It's 5 through -- yes, it is 10. Your Honor, I also did some work

MR. BLICKENSTAFF:

on this before I left on Friday, and I have some possible light to shed on those three warrants as well, if the Court would like to hear. THE COURT: I would. Based on the information I have

in the government's memorandum in support of detention, Clovis police officer Cleaver (phonetic) who was involved in the underlying investigation and then arrested Mr. Rodriguez in connection with the three outstanding warrants advised that they were issued for failure to appear. to clarify or add anything to that. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Yes. I don't think that's So if you would like

Here's the information that I've been able to discern

from talking to my client, his significant other, who is in the courtroom today, as well as his supervised release officer, probation officer, if you will, in the state system after he

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was released on the sentence that he received on February 22nd, 2012. I'm sorry, I've forgotten her last name, her first name

is Astrid. But here's what I was able to piece together. These

warrants grew out of an incident that happened in April of 2011 when Mr. Rodriguez was arrested at the Black Beard's whatever that is, amusement park, I guess. He was arrested for prying He was also He

open a box to take tokens to play video games. drinking alcohol at the time.

Apparently the police came.

was arrested for burglary, and obstruction at that time, and also for a DUI, which I don't understand, but that's what the record is. He was taken to jail, but no charges were filed. He

was released approximately three or four days after his initial arrest. There was no citation to appear. He was just

released, and knowing the procedure over there, I know when charges aren't filed within a specific period of time, then they have to be released, and he was released. I have information from his wife, as well as Mr. Rodriguez that thereafter there were several attempts on the part of both of them to find out if charges were filed by calling the DA's office and more than once actually appearing on the fourth floor of the Fresno County Courthouse to determine whether or not charges had been filed. nothing that had been filed. They learned

And this went on for some period

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 5 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of time.

And apparently doing that got old after a while, and

they started not checking anymore. Some time after that, it's apparent that those charges were filed, and on January 1st, 2012, when the police came to investigate the so-called disturbance, the domestic violence disturbance, that's the subject of Exhibit No. 4, which by the way turned out to be unfounded, there was no domestic violence at all. THE COURT: That's January 2nd, 2012. Yes.

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: January 2nd.

I thought it a January 1st, but

He was eventually arrested on those warrants

because they became outstanding, but it was not because he failed to appear, they were just original warrants that got issued finally out of the April 2011 incident. So he was in jail from that point until February 22nd when he was sentenced to 16 months, and that was 8 and 8 under AB109, and because he time credits to February 2nd that equaled the 8 months, he was released on these charges. On the -- what

he actually pled to, Your Honor, was a burglary, and not the DUI that grew out of the April incident, but an older one, because the April incident DUI was dismissed along with a 148, the obstruction. But on the burglary and a fourth DUI, he was

sentenced to 16 months under AB109.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 6 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 old one? report.

THE COURT:

Can I just stop you right there?

I have

an April 10th, 2011 arrest and a conviction of February 22nd, 2012 for second degree burglary, 16 months in jail. I also

have a 2-22-2012 arrest, and a conviction for burglary, second degree burglary and DUI. I'm looking at Ms. Serrano's report.

Unfortunately she's not here to shed any light, but I have two different arrest dates and two different convictions for second degree burglary. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: Okay. There was only one burglary. And I'm looking at page 4 of the

Maybe Mr. Stark can assist us, but I -- that's what I

have before me. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Page 4 of the new report, or the

THE COURT:

Of the old report.

The new report

doesn't address this issue.

But page 4, I have an April 10th,

2011 arrest, and I was informed that the first column indicates the arrest date, and I have a 2-22-12 conviction -- felony conviction for second degree burglary for which Mr. Rodriguez got 16 months in jail. And I also have another -- you know, the arrest date may have been 4-10-11 again -MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: That's correct.

-- for the 2-22-12 issue, that is But it looks

confusing in the manner in which it's presented.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 7 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

like in that case there was a conviction for second degree burglary as well as DUI with 8 months in jail. two different jail terms as far as I can tell. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Well, Ms. Serrano and I talked So there are

about this, and we both agreed that the scenario that I'm laying out for you is the correct one, that he -- the arrest happened on April 10th, 2011, the burglary, the resisting and the DUI, and nothing happened after the initial arrest until January 2nd when he was arrested on the domestic violence case. And then the disposition happened on February 22nd of 2012. THE COURT: And then we have a bench warrant that was I realize there's no

issued for failure to appear on 1-2-12.

disposition noted, but there is a bench warrant that was issued for failure to appear. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm sorry? I don't know the disposition But I don't know the I don't know the disposition of

MR. BLICKENSTAFF:

of -- well, there is no disposition. facts behind that. well. THE COURT: Okay.

I just see that there's no disposition as

Thank you. In any case, he was sentenced on

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: February 22nd. time credits.

He received time served because he had so many He wasn't let out immediately. He tells me that

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 8 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

he had to stay in jail for another 30 days or so, and I don't know what that was for. April of 2012. But in any case, he's out in March or

He has 8 months of supervision after that, and

finally, that was terminated in November of 2012. So on August 25th, the day of this incident, yes, he was on supervised release at that time, or probation, but I think that explains the warrant situation in any case, and I think Ms. Serrano agrees with me on that. THE COURT: I have reviewed -- thank you very much,

Mr. Blickenstaff, for that clarification. I reviewed Ms. Serrano's report, and as I indicated, I tried to follow-up with her. appear to address that issue. Her report is brief and doesn't It indicates that Pretrial

Services contacted Fresno County Superior Court and confirmed that with respect to Case Nos. F11902454 and F11906579, the Court records show Mr. Rodriguez was arrested on active warrants in those cases on January 3rd, 2012 and ultimately sentenced in both cases on February 22nd, 2012. She also indicates Pretrial Services was advised that there was no record on file with respect to a no bail warrant with the defendant's arrest on or about January 2nd, 2012, for a charge of obstructing a public officer. As far as I can

tell, she doesn't indicate whether or not they were failure to appear warrants and doesn't even address that issue, which was, I thought, the purpose of continuing the matter.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 9 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT:

Well --

But anyway, I appreciate your

clarification, because it adds more than I had in the report. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Your Honor, if you'd allow me to

proceed, there's a couple of other things I want to say, but perhaps you want to hear from the government first. THE COURT: No, please continue. Your Honor, Ms. Escobar made much

MR. BLICKENSTAFF:

of the facts of this case when we were last in session about being very serious facts, and the fact that in her estimation, at least, there's going to be a lengthy prison sentence if he's found guilty of it. I think the Court ought to know a little bit more of the detail. The laser in question, my information is that it's The price,

purchased at Wal-Mart, or other places presumably. I'm informed, is $7.99.

It is powered by two AAA batteries.

Ms. Escobar says many times in her moving papers here that it is a powerful laser. What I've been able to discern is that

these lasers are sold primarily in the pet department and they are used to tease cats by putting a point on the wall and watching the cats chase them. The laser in this case was really a curiosity piece, or a plaything for children. Now, we may not agree with that

knowing what we know now about pointing it at eyes, but this family wasn't really aware of the dangerous capability of this

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 10 of 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

thing.

In fact, on the night in question, as a family, it went

outside with them, and each of them took a turn pointing it at various objects, including the sky. I don't know that there's going to be irrefutable proof about who did what, when, and what at. But it's clear

that pretty much all of them used it at one time or another, not to disable a helicopter, not to injure people in a helicopter, but probably to find out how far it reached. There was not a malicious intent here to do anything like that. It may have been a stupid, stupid thing to do, but

it wasn't with the intent of knocking down a helicopter or injuring anybody inside. Lastly I would point out the fact that there are conditions that would give us reasonable assurance that this young man will return to court, and it seems to me that we've presented adequate facts to have the Court order him released. And I'll submit it. THE COURT: Ms. Escobar? MS. ESCOBAR: Your Honor, with respect to the Thank you very much, Mr. Blickenstaff.

warrants, I did make contact with the Fresno County Warrant Office, and their records people indicate that they cannot determine what the purpose or nature of the warrants were, whether they were for failure to appear. I did confirm with the officer that he was aware that

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 11 of 26

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

those warrants issued because the defendant failed to make court appearances. The clerk at the Fresno County Warrants Office indicated the only way to determine the nature of those warrants is to contact the court and to look through the court records and see why those warrants issued, and the warrants -Ms. Serrano has indicated the warrant numbers for two of the outstanding warrants. three. One of the warrants issued in connection with a separate incident, not in April at Black Beard's, but in connection with a separate DUI, that's the October 2011 DUI that was charged and is noted in the Pretrial Services report. So there is -- other than Officer Cleaver's memory, there is no substantiation by pretrial and she could not have found that out from the warrant section. court records. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this, Ms. Escobar. We'd have to research though the Officer Cleaver said there were actually

Then is the statement that Clovis Police Office Cleaver who was involved in the underlying investigation and arrested defendant in connection with the three outstanding warrants in 2012, the fact that he advised that the warrants were issued for failure to appear, is that inaccurate then? MS. ESCOBAR: That's correct. No, that is correct.

It's just there is no documentation or -- that is what he

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 12 of 26

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

determined at the time when he arrested the defendant on the domestic violence case, and -MR. BLICKENSTAFF: violence. THE COURT: MS. ESCOBAR: How was he -Well, it was -- when he did the call. There was no arrest on a domestic

Went out -- responded to a call and was attempting to identify the defendant and there was -- the defendant's girlfriend gave the name of Javier. He gave a different date of birth.

Eventually Officer Cleaver was able to -- obtained the correct identification and then at that time found the three outstanding warrants, and Officer Cleaver determined at that time that the warrants had issued for failure to appear. THE COURT: But how would he know that if we haven't

been able to determine that so far? MS. ESCOBAR: Well I don't know how it works upon

arrest, but the warrants clerk said that when the defendant was then booked that the warrants were canceled, is the word she used, but there is no record now, and the only way to find out is from the Court, at least to corroborate Officer Cleaver. But he said that at that time he determined they were for failure to appear. The -- Ms. Serrano, I know the Court didn't ask Ms. Serrano to do this, but has not addressed the rebuttable presumption issue. I still would maintain that this case does

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 13 of 26

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

fall under the rebuttable presumption. But with respect to the laser -- although it -- these lasers are readily available, that is one reason why there are so many incidents, I believe. This particular laser was a

class 3 laser, which is one that if this is a 3a laser is -- may be purchased, but it's very dangerous, and there are warnings on it, on the laser itself, in red, and says don't point it at the eye. A 3b, and this laser is classified on the label as a 3 -- just a 3, not 3 -- there are two classifications. regulates lasers. FDA

There's a 3a which is legal if used in a This particular laser

proper manner, and a 3b, which is not.

was made in China, so it was no one that was regulated by FDA. I don't know if it was actually a 3b or a 3a. In any event

both of those types of lasers can cause severe and permanent eye injury. The -- when you point a laser at the sky, and at an object in the sky, one would think, well, boy that's -- that is -- you know, just happenstance and just luck that they would even be able to hit an object in the sky. But the laser has a

coning effect of being coned, and it is rather easy to strike a moving object in the sky. And because of that coning effect,

the impact on the people in a cockpit on a helicopter have severe blinding momentarily. If that laser is sustained, if

the strike is sustained, the pilots can temporarily lose vision

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 14 of 26

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

or have permanent vision loss. The defendant, Mr. Blickenstaff indicates this was a stupid thing. That is the very thing that -- there was a

sentencing yesterday in Los Angeles, in federal court, in the Central District, Judge Steven Wilson was the district judge who considered another laser case. aiming of a laser at an aircraft. That defendant was not charged, as here, with the additional more serious crime of interfering with the safe operation of an aircraft under 18 U.S.C. 32. The defendant in The charge was simply the

Los Angeles was charged with the lesser and more easily provable offense of the aiming of the laser, which is a 5 year statutory maximum. That defendant had no criminal history. He is 19

years old, and the judge departed above the guidelines finding -- rejecting the argument that it was a stupid thing to do, rejecting the argument that the defendant in that case had no idea of the danger or potential impact on a pilot, or a crew member. The Court departed upward. The government was

recommending a sentence of 18 months. The Court sentenced the defendant, and this was just yesterday, to 30 months in prison, noted that the problem is epidemic, and that California in particular has more of these laser incidents than anywhere in the United States. That last

year there were 500 in the State of California of the nearly

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 15 of 26

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

3500 nationwide laser attacks. So it is a serious offense. This defendant is facing

a significantly greater period of time under the guidelines, due to his criminal history, and I did indicate that the guideline calculation without any enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon or other applicable enhancements, the bare minimum is 70 to 87 months. In light of the serious nature of the offense, in light of the defendant's criminal history, in light of his past efforts to obstruct justice by providing a false name to law enforcement or providing a false date of birth, his failure to appears -- there is a history of failure to appear. Your Honor, I again do not believe he's overcome the statutory rebuttable presumption, but setting that aside, this defendant is a danger to the community, and is a flight risk and I don't believe that an O/R sentence, or O/R order would be appropriate here. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: Yes. May I be heard brief, Your Honor? Please. Your Honor, I'm just wondering

MR. BLICKENSTAFF:

whether or not the person that got 30 months in prison in Los Angeles had been detained. I don't know if counsel has that

information, but that's what we're talking about here today, and it's clear from two attempts by Ms. Serrano at this issue, that she's come up with conditions that would give reasonable

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 16 of 26

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

assurance that he's going to appear. Secondly, I have here, that was just given to me this morning, or this afternoon, W-2s from Wawona Orchards that show that Mr. Rodriguez made $3,400 in the calendar year 2012 at Wawona Foods. I didn't have a chance to show this to counsel,

but if the Court would like to see it -(Pause.) MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. As I said the other day, Your May I hand it to your clerk, Your

MR. BLICKENSTAFF:

Honor, his work is really seasonal depending upon what there is to do at the Wawona Ranch. It's an orchard, if you will, and I And there are various

think the primary crop is peaches.

things you have to do to peaches along the year to bring them into production or harvest. That's finished. I've got a pay stub over here for 2013 that shows that he worked for a period this year already. And the next And one of them is pruning.

thing that comes up is thinning of the peaches, and that's supposed to happen on April 15th -- I'm sorry, on -- yes, April 15th. Your Honor, I had an opportunity to read the section that counsel contends makes this a rebuttable presumption. I

think we've overcome that presumption anyway, but I'm not sure

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 17 of 26

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that it is, after I read it, because in the (g) section of that rather lengthy citation, it talks about there needing to be terrorist activity. This is not terrorist activity. This is a family

going out at night and maybe doing something stupid, but it's not terrorist activity. And we're doing it with an instrument So I just -- my sense of

that requires two AAA batteries.

proportion here is apparently way off from counsel's, because I don't see this as a lengthy prison term sentence, even if he's got a spotty record, and he does, most assuredly. His failures to appear I think we've come close to explaining, maybe not all the way, but come close -THE COURT: Can I ask you a question that issue, and I thought I

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Blickenstaff.

heard you say at the last hearing, based on your conversation with Mr. Rodriguez that he appeared the next morning and had overslept and that was the reason for the FTA, on the felony charge. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: I don't know what --

But the explanation today was different So I'm a little unclear as to

from his sister and his mother.

what the explanation was because there is a bench warrant for failure to appear on a felony charge. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: When I talked to him about that, I His

was under the impression that there was one bench warrant.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 18 of 26

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

explanation to me was, I had been let out of jail at 4:00 a.m. to appear the following morning at 8:30, and I slept through it. I went to court, put the matter on calendar and later

appeared on the date that I put it on, and it was forgiven, or discharged or whatever. I can't tell you which one that was.

I'm just picking a scenario out, and that's the explanation that I was given. THE COURT: Thank you. If I have anything else here, Your I just wanted the Court to know that

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Honor -- well, that's it.

he truly is employed, but on that basis of when a crop needs him. THE COURT: Blickenstaff. Anything further Ms. Escobar? MS. ESCOBAR: Your Honor, just back on the rebuttable Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.

presumption, the definition of federal crime of terrorism, and I think we went over it last time, but means -- for purposes of determining the applicability of a rebuttable presumption means an offense that is a violation of Section 32, and that is what the defendant is charged with. charged with. One of the offenses he is

And so, by the plain language of the statute, it

appears that it would apply. But in any event, the Court should consider the nature of the offense, the multiple -- multiple lasings of the

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 19 of 26

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

two separate helicopters, the fact that one was an emergency air transport helicopter for children, the fact that sustained lasing of those helicopters could have resulted in the crash of both of them, and I would ask the Court to detain the defendant. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Your Honor, as I look at this

section, I'm looking at (5) after (g) and it says "the term federal crime of terrorism means an offense that," and then it goes down and says Section 32, a federal crime of terrorism. We don't even know precisely when and who and what this laser was aimed at. I will indicate to the Court that my

information is that every family member used it to some extent, including a 4 year old and a 2 year old. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blickenstaff. Is there

anything further with respect to detention? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: No, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor. Thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez, I have considered a significant amount of information in this case, I have reviewed all of the exhibits, the submissions by the government. I've heard

argument from your attorney, and based on all the information I have before me, I'm going to order that you be detained as a risk of non-appearance. I find that there are no conditions or

combination of conditions that would assure your appearance at

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 20 of 26

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

later court proceedings. Even disregarding for the purposes of my ruling the government's argument that the rebuttable presumption applies because the crime alleged to have been committed by Mr. Rodriguez is a crime of violence, for the following reasons I find that Mr. Rodriguez is a risk of non-appearance. First of all, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and you heard both counsel refer to it, you're charged with attempted unlawful interference with an aircraft, as well as aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft. The maximum possible

penalty for, I believe it's the first charge, is up to 20 years in custody and a fine of up to $250,000, is that correct, Ms. Escobar? MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. With respect to your history and

characteristics, I do appreciate the fact that you have a W-2 from 2012 from Wawona Farms, however, I don't see the steady employment, and the reason I say that is because although the Pretrial Services report indicates that you've worked seasonally for the past three years, according to an October 17th, 2011 arrest report, which is Exhibit 5 attached to the government's memorandum in support of detention, you were unemployed. According to the April 4th, 2011 report, you were

also unemployed as of that date. Significantly, you have a prior record of failure to

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 21 of 26

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

appear, and according to Ms. Serrano's report, on January 2nd, 2012, a bench warrant was issued for failure to appear. Although there is no disposition noted, Officer Cleaver, the arresting officer who was involved in the underlying investigation in 2012, indicates that you had three active warrants for your arrest in connection with the burglary and the DUI charges. According to the government's memo, these warrants were issued for failure to appear. That has not been

substantiated, but again, according to Ms. Serrano's report, there is a bench warrant for failure to appear, so you have a bench warrant that was issued on January 2nd 2012. This is very significant also. being untruthful with law enforcement. You have a history of Officer Cleaver's

January 2nd, 2012 report indicates that you were untruthful with the officer about your identity, and that you admitted to lying to the officer because you knew you had active warrants and did not want to go to jail. Officer Cleaver's report. According to the Clovis P.D. report, which is Exhibit 9, you admitted to placing a fraudulent registration sticker, which was not assigned to your vehicle, on your license plate. You admitted that you knew it was wrong, and it was illegal, but you nonetheless did it. You were also on probation when the instant offenses And that's a direct quote from

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 22 of 26

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

were allegedly committed.

You have a history of poor

performance on probation, as evidenced by new arrests and convictions. You have a significant prior criminal record that

dates back to 2002 when you were only 13 years old and includes two obstruction of public officer convictions, and I'm assuming that what o-b-s-t-r-u-c-t-p-u-b-o-f-c-r, those -- there are three references to those convictions in Ms. Serrano's report. You have a history relating to alcohol abuse as evidenced by your four DUI convictions beginning in 2007 and most recently in 2012, and you don't have significant financial resources for a bond. For all of those reasons, I'm going to order that you remain in the care, custody and control of the United States Marshal until further order of this Court. And with respect to the weight of the evidence, that is the least significant factor, but -- and I do incorporate the United States' arguments regarding the weight of the evidence. Again, I did not address the rebuttable presumption.

If the rebuttable presumption does apply, which according to the statute would apply to an offense in violation of Section 32, which this is, then there would be another reason for detaining Mr. Rodriguez based on a risk of non-appearance. But as I indicated, my ruling stands, notwithstanding whether or not the rebuttable presumption applies. If that

presumption applies, and Mr. Rodriguez has not met his burden

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 23 of 26

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of proving that he's neither a flight risk nor a danger to any other person or to the community, and I am not making any finding at this time with respect to danger to the community. And the preliminary hearing date in this case is March 28th, 2013. Is there anything else I can address for the parties? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Your Honor, is it possible -- I Is it possible to go ahead and

have a copy of the indictment.

arraign today and -- so I don't have to appear on the 26th -or no, what day was it? THE COURT: 28th. Yes, it's on April 20 -- I'm sorry, March

I would be -- actually the preliminary hearing date is I would be happy to do that, but I do not have If I can get a copy of the

on March 28th.

before me a copy of the indictment.

indictment, I will be -- and it's acceptable to both parties, I can -- and do I have the maximum possible penalties also? MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Rodriguez, an indictment has been filed against you dated March 21st, 2013 charging you with the following violations. In count 1 you're charged with a violation of 18

United States Code Section 32(a)(5) and (a)(8) conspiracy to interfere with safe operation of aircraft. The maximum

possible penalty for this offense is up to 20 years in custody and a fine of up to $250,000.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 24 of 26

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In counts 2 to 3 you're charged with attempt to interfere with the safe operation of aircraft and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 32(a)(5), (a)(8) and Section (2), and the maximum possible penalty for this offense is also up to 20 years in custody, and a fine of up to $250,000. And finally in counts 4 through 5, you're charged with aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft and aiding and abetting, which -- in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 39(a) and Section (2), and this charge carries a maximum possible penalty of up to 5 years in custody and a fine of up to $250,000. Do you understand the charges against you and the maximum possible penalty that could be imposed if you're convicted of these offense? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes. And the indictment also And you have the

Thank you.

contains a criminal forfeiture allegation. right to remain silent. against you.

Anything you say can and will be used

And on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez, have you received a copy of the indictment, Mr. Blickenstaff? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: Yes, Your Honor. We do

acknowledge receipt of the indictment.

Mr. Rodriguez's name is We deny the

correctly set forth as Sergio Patrick Rodriguez. aka of Javier Rodriguez.

We'd waive a reading of the

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 25 of 26

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

indictment and any further recitation of his constitutional and statutory rights. At this time, he enters a plea of not guilty to each of the charges that he is named, and deny the forfeiture allegation, ask for discovery. THE COURT: is accepted. Thank you very much. The not guilty plea

The Court orders discovery within 14 days And is the government requesting

pursuant to Local Rule 440. reciprocal discovery? MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor. So ordered. The matter of detention has

already been addressed, and I'm going to vacate the preliminary hearing date of March 28th, 2013 and I can set a -MS. ESCOBAR: defendant. THE COURT: MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: I'm sorry. Okay. As to Mr. Rodriguez only, and on what You are correct. As to this defendant. There is the co-

date would the parties wish that I set the status conference? I can set it for April 15th and that would give us an opportunity to arraign the remaining co-defendants, if that's acceptable to you, Mr. Blickenstaff? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: Yes. Did you say April 15th? That would be -- I can do it on the

1st or the 15th, and I'm assuming the 1st may be too early.

Case 1:13-cr-00109-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/17/13 Page 26 of 26

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recess.

MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT:

Did you say the 1st or the 15th?

I can do either the 1st of April or the

15th of April at 1:00 p.m. MR. BLICKENSTAFF: THE COURT: MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: Okay. I'm available on the 1st. Ms. Escobar?

That's fine, Your Honor. Okay. The status conference in this case

will be on April 1st, 2013 at 1:00 p.m., and that will be in this Court and -- in courtroom 3, I'm sorry. it will be before me in courtroom 3. And is there anything else I can assist the parties with at this time? MR. BLICKENSTAFF: MS. ESCOBAR: THE COURT: No, Your Honor. That is correct,

No, Your Honor. Thank you very much. Court stands in

(Whereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned at 2:14 p.m.) --o0o-CERTIFICATE I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.

April 16, 2013 Patricia A. Petrilla, Transcriber AAERT CERT*D-113