Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Paredes-Machado

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

August 27, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARCO ANTONIO PAREDES-MACHADO, Defendant.

          ORDER: (1) OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION [ECF No. 915]; (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 910]; AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT [ECF No. 885]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

         Defendant Marco Antonio Paredes-Machado (“Paredes-Machado”), a Mexican national extradited to the United States, is charged with Conspiracy to Distribute and Conspiracy to Import More Than 1, 000 Kilograms of Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 952, 960(a)(1), and 963.

         On November 15, 2018, Paredes-Machado filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues dismissal is appropriate due to “outrageous government conduct” that took place after his arrest in Mexico. [ECF No. 885]. Paredes-Machado alleges that the Mexican officers who arrested him tortured him and his wife before turning him over to United States agents.

         It is undisputed that the United States was involved in the investigation leading up to Paredes-Machado's arrest, and that the underlying arrest was pursuant to a U.S. warrant. Paredes-Machado says the Mexican officers were essentially “agents” of the United States because they worked in a unit that received training, funding, and at least some oversight by the U.S. He says the United States knew or should have known that Mexican officers would torture him when it asked Mexico to apprehend him. Paredes-Machado says this makes the government's conduct shocking to the conscience and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

         The Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). Judge Grand held a hearing on February 4, 2019.

         On March 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R. [ECF No. 910]. He recommends DENYING the motion, finding that, although Paredes-Machado's allegations “raise serious concerns about his treatment by the Mexican arresting officers, some of whom may have received training and funding from the United States government, dismissal of the criminal charges against him is not an available remedy for any such abuse.” The magistrate judge relies on well-established case law.

         Paredes-Machado's objections are fully briefed.

         As Paredes-Machado acknowledges, the R&R is based on a purely legal issue - i.e., whether, accepting as true his allegations, the outrageous government conduct defense is available to him. Except for one minor objection, Paredes-Machado accepts the R&R's recitation of facts. Accordingly, except for the one fact objected to - which is discussed below - the Court accepts the facts set forth in the R&R and incorporates them by reference.

         The Court reviewed the parties' briefs and the record. It makes a de novo determination of the parts of the R&R to which Paredes-Machado objects, and finds that Paredes-Machado is not entitled to dismissal of the indictment.

         Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Paredes-Machado's Objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and DENIES Paredes-Machado's motion to dismiss the indictment.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         When a party properly objects to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court reviews such portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, only specific objections that pinpoint a source of error in the report are entitled to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Parties may not raise new arguments in their objections or issues that were not presented to the magistrate judge. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 (6th Cir. 2000). See also United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1996) (“issues raised for the first time in objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation are deemed waived”)).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.