What is the test for a motion to revoke or amend a detention order?

A person "ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court ... may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order. The motion shall be determined promptly." 18 U.S.C. 3145(b). Under this provision, the district court conducts its own de novo review of the magistrate judge's detention order. United States v. Koenig , 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990). The district court "should review the evidence before the magistrate and make its own independent determination whether the magistrate's findings are correct, with no deference." Id. at 1193. "[T]he district court, while empowered to do so, is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing when no evidence is offered that was not before the magistrate." Id.

The Bail Reform Act imposes a presumption against pretrial release for defendants charged with serious narcotics offenses, as is defendant here. See United States v. Moore , 607 F. Supp. 489, 497 (N.D. Cal. 1985). "Subject to rebuttal by the [defendant], it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. )." 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3)(A). However, "the government may not rest solely on the rebuttable presumption to support its motion to detain a defendant pending trial." Moore , 607 F. Supp. at 498. The government "retains the burden throughout the proceeding to show by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure defendant's appearance at trial or the safety of the community." Id. at 497. Moreover, "the Government must establish risk of flight by a clear preponderance of the evidence, not by the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence." United States v. Motamedi , 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). Also, "[a] finding that a defendant is a danger to any other person or the community must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. " United States v. Hir , 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 18 U.S.C. 3142(f)(2)(B) ).