USA v. Paulino

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
26
27
28
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JESUS K. PAULINO, JR.,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25-00001
ORDER
Denying Motion for Release on
from Custody (ECF No. 129)
Pending before the court is the Defendant’s Motion for Release from Custody (the “Motion
for Release”), to which the United States objects. 	See Mot. Release, ECF No. 129, and USA’s
Opp’n, ECF No. 131. The Defendant also filed a Reply to the United States’ Opposition. See ECF
No. 136. Oral argument will not aid the court in resolving the matter. Accordingly, based on the
parties’ filings and relevant authority, the court issues this Order denying the Motion for Release.
BACKGROUND
1. 	Complaint and Detention
On February 28, 2025, a Complaint was filed charging the Defendant with Attempted
Possession with Intent to Distribute Fifty or More Grams of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
He appeared in court later that day and was ordered to be detained. See Mins., ECF No. 4.
Although the Defendant had presented evidence to rebut the presumption requiring his detention,
based on the amount of drugs (about 32 pounds) involved and his lack of a stable residence, the
court ordered that he remain in custody until his sister consented to the Defendant staying at her
residence and the home could be assessed to ensure it was compatible with the location monitoring
(“LM”) equipment. Id. and Order of Detention, ECF No. 7.
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 6

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
26
27
28
United States v. Jesus K. Paulino, Jr., Criminal Case No. 25-00001
Order Denying Motion for Release 	page 2 of 6
2. 	Indictment and Release
On March 12, 2025, an Indictment was filed charging him with Attempted Possession with
Intent to Distribute Fifty or More Grams of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Indictment, ECF No. 8.
On March 20, 2025, he appeared in court for an arraignment. See Mins., ECF No. 13. Trial
was set May 28, 2025, and the Defendant was ordered to be released to reside in a residence being
rented by his sister. 	See Order Setting Conditions of Release, ECF No. 15. 	Among various
conditions of release imposed, the Defendant was placed on home detention with location
monitoring and ordered not to use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled
substance and to submit to drug testing. Id. at ¶ 7(m)-(n) and (q)-®.
3. 	Pretrial Violations
On April 8, 2025, the probation officer filed a violation petition, see ECF No. 16, alleging
that a sweat patch was applied on and worn by the Defendant from March 25-27, 2025. When the
sweat patch was removed, the Defendant told the probation officer that he had a prescription for and
had been taking Klonopine and Oxycodone. When the lab results were received, it was positive for
benzodiazepines and Oxycodone, which is consistent with his prescriptions. However, the sweat
patch was also positive for cocaine.
On April 8, 2025, the probation officer met with the Defendant, and he provided her with his
medication bottles. The probation officer noticed that the Oxycodone prescription was filled on
March 25, 2025, with 90 pills dispensed and instructions that he take one tablet every 8 hours. At
this rate, the Defendant’s Oxycodone pills should have lasted about one month, but the bottle was
already empty. The probation officer suspected that the Defendant may be abusing his prescription.
On April 11, 2025, the Defendant appeared as summoned, and the Defendant entered
admissions to all the allegations in the violation petition.
On April 25, 2025, the probation officer filed a Supplemental Declaration alleging the
Defendant tested positive for cocaine and Oxycodone on a sweat patch worn April 8-10, 2025. See
ECF No. 25.
On May 13, 2025, the court took no further action against the Defendant for the violations
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 6

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
26
27
28
United States v. Jesus K. Paulino, Jr., Criminal Case No. 25-00001
Order Denying Motion for Release 	page 3 of 6
because subsequent urinalyses and sweat patches returned negative, and the Defendant had begun
treatment sessions at New Beginnings. See Mins., ECF No. 37.
4. 	Guilty Verdict and Detention
On December 10, 2025, the jury returned a guilty verdict against the Defendant. See ECF
No. 104. 	The court set the matter for sentencing on March 11, 2026, 1 and allowed the Defendant
to remain released. See Mins., ECF No. 103.
On December 15, 2025, the United States filed a Motion for Detention, arguing that
Defendant’s detention pending sentencing was required under Section 3143(a)(2). 	See ECF
No. 106. On January 6, 2026, the court granted the government’s motion and ordered the Defendant
to be detained pending sentencing. See Mins., ECF No. 121.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed the instant motion. See ECF No. 129.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Because the Defendant is awaiting sentencing, the relevant statute governing release is 18
U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2). 2 Under said statute, a person convicted of a drug offense for which the
maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more shall not be released pending imposition or
execution of sentence unless the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not
likely to flee or to pose a danger to any other person or the community, and (I) there is a substantial
1 The sentencing hearing was later rescheduled to March 26, 2029. See Order, ECF No. 128.
2 Pursuant to this statute,
[t]he 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 unless
–
(A)(i) the judicial officer finds there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for
acquittal or new trial will be granted; or
(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 the safety of any other person or the community.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) (emphasis added).
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 6

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
26
27
28
United States v. Jesus K. Paulino, Jr., Criminal Case No. 25-00001
Order Denying Motion for Release 	page 4 of 6
likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted or (ii) an attorney for the
government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed upon the person.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).
DISCUSSION
The Defendant’s requests that he be released pending sentencing. The Defendant notes that
he is proceeding pro se, having knowingly waived the right to be represented by counsel, and he
asserts that he has no access to a law library and other resources that would permit him to prepare
for sentencing and research legal issues related to his post-trial motions. Mot. Release at 1-2, ECF
No. 129. He argues that his “detention conditions extremely hinder his right to Due Process.” Id.
at 5-6.
Applying Section 3143(a)(2), the court must determine whether “there is a substantial
likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2)(A)(I).
The record reflects that on December 29, 2025, the Defendant filed a Post-Verdict Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal and a Motion for New Trial. See ECF Nos. 115 and 117. The mere filing
of these motions, however, does not mean there is a substantial likelihood that the motions will be
granted. While the below-signed judge did not preside over the trial, based on the jury’s guilty
verdict and a review of the post-trial motions and related filings, the court is not convinced that there
is a substantial likelihood that the Post-Verdict Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or the Motion for
New Trial will be granted.
The court must next examine whether an attorney for the government “has recommended
that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed” on the Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Here, the United States has affirmed that it “will not recommend a sentence of no imprisonment . . .
at sentencing.” 	USA’s Opp’n at 3, ECF No. 131. 	Because neither of the conditions of
Section 	3143(a)(2)(A) 	have 	been 	satisfied, 	it 	is 	unnecessary 	for 	the 	court 	to 	address
Section 3143(a)(2)(B). 	The court finds that the Defendant’s detention is required pursuant to
Section 3143(a)(2).
The Ninth Circuit has stated that release may also be authorized “if it is clearly shown that
there are exceptional reasons why such person’s detention would not be appropriate.” See 18 U.S.C.
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 6

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
26
27
28
United States v. Jesus K. Paulino, Jr., Criminal Case No. 25-00001
Order Denying Motion for Release 	page 5 of 6
§ 3145©. 3 In United States v. Garcia, 340 F.3d 1013 (9 th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit provided
guidance to district courts by setting forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that district courts should
consider in determining whether there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant release
from detention. 	The court stated that district courts “should examine the totality of the
circumstances and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether, due to any truly unusual
factors or combination of factors . . . it would be unreasonable to incarcerate the defendant prior to
[appeal or sentencing].” 	Id. at 1019. These factors include but are not limited to (1) whether the
defendant’s criminal conduct was aberrational, (2) the nature of the violent act; (3) the length of the
prison sentence – both the maximum and the sentence actually or likely to be imposed, (4) other
circumstances, such as a sufficiently serious illness or injury, that would render hardships of prison
unusually harsh for a particular defendant, (5) the nature of the defendant’s arguments on appeal,
(6) whether because of particular circumstances the defendant is exceptionally unlikely to flee or to
constitute a danger to the community if he is permitted to remain on release, and (7) whether the
defendant was unusually cooperative with the government. 	Id. 	at 1019-21. 	The Ninth Circuit
further emphasized that
the exception applies only where justified by exceptional circumstances. Hardships
that commonly result from imprisonment do not meet the standard. The general rule
must remain that conviction for a covered offense entails immediate incarceration.
Only in truly unusual circumstances will a defendant whose offense is subject to the
statutory provision be allowed to remain on bail pending [sentencing].
Id. at 1022 (emphasis added).
The court finds that the Defendant has not clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons
why his detention would not be appropriate. 	The court has reviewed the Defendant’s final
presentence report. See ECF No. 146. The Defendant faces a mandatory minimum sentence of ten
years’ imprisonment and his guideline range is 235-293 months. While this is the Defendant’s first
drug conviction, the court cannot conclude that his criminal conduct was aberrational based on the
3 In pertinent part, this statute provides: “A person subject to detention pursuant to section
3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in section 3143(a)(1) or
(b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly
shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person’s detention would not be appropriate.”
18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (emphasis added).
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 6

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
26
27
28
United States v. Jesus K. Paulino, Jr., Criminal Case No. 25-00001
Order Denying Motion for Release 	page 6 of 6
positive sweat patches that were noted while the Defendant was on pretrial release, violations to
which he admitted. 	Finally, the fact that the Defendant cannot access a law library is not an
exceptional factor. Rather, it is a hardship that commonly results from imprisonment. Moreover,
the court appointed Rawlen Mantanona as the Defendant’s standby counsel, and Mr. Mantanona
can assist the Defendant with any legal research that is required. Accordingly, the court denies the
Defendant’s Motion for Release.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, the court hereby denies the Defendant’s request for release
pending sentencing because he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 3143(a)(2) and
3145(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ 0LFKDHO - %RUGDOOR
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Mar 20, 2026
Case 1:25-cr-00001 Document 150 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 6