## Facts

- Amir Masoud Motamedi, an Iranian citizen and lawful permanent resident living in Los Angeles, was charged with conspiracy and multiple counts of exporting controlled items without required licenses and with false shipping declarations.
- A magistrate initially released Motamedi on stringent conditions, including a $400,000 secured bond, intensive supervision, travel restrictions, and surrender of his passport and permanent resident card; Motamedi complied.
- After indictment, the government sought pretrial detention, asserting Motamedi posed a serious risk of flight due to foreign citizenship, alleged ties to Iran, and purported foreign assets.
- The magistrate ordered detention, finding no conditions would reasonably assure appearance, relying on assertions that Motamedi could return to Iran “with impunity,” had substantial foreign accounts, and continued exporting despite law-enforcement warnings.
- Motamedi argued he had lived in Los Angeles since 1977, had extensive family ties in the area (about 85 relatives), had no criminal record, had a pending citizenship application, could not safely return to Iran, and had consistently appeared and complied with prior conditions.
- The district court affirmed detention after a second hearing, treating the magistrate’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered conditional release; the government moved for reconsideration, which led to the published decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Motamedi posed a serious risk of flight such that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance under the Bail Reform Act of 1984.
2. What standard of appellate review applies to pretrial detention decisions, including the treatment of factual findings and evaluation of the statutory factors.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed its reversal of the pretrial detention order.
- The court held the government did not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Motamedi presented a serious risk of flight that could not be managed by conditions of release.
- The court ordered release subject to appropriate conditions consistent with the Bail Reform Act.

## Legal Principles

- Pretrial detention is limited; release is the general rule, and close questions about release should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
- To detain based on flight risk, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance.
- In the detention analysis, “the weight of the evidence against the defendant” is the least important statutory factor; detention may not rest on a pretrial assessment of guilt.
- Appellate review requires an independent (de novo) assessment of whether detention is necessary, while historical factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
- A defendant’s record of compliance with prior release conditions and strong community ties weigh heavily in favor of conditional release and against detention.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that stringent conditions, rather than detention, could reasonably assure Motamedi’s appearance because the government’s flight-risk showing did not outweigh his demonstrated compliance and substantial ties to the community, and it therefore reinstated conditional pretrial release.


United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1985)