UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IRMA ANTONIA RAMOS CORTEZ (2026)

ORDER TAKING MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT AND SETTING DE NOVO HEARING

This cause comes before the Court on the Motion for Review of Release Order [1] pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1) filed by the United States of America for revocation of a release ruling issued by a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas. The Government filed this Motion yesterday afternoon and specifically requests that this Court reverse the Magistrate Judge's Order of Release and instead order the detention of Ramos-Cortez. The Government has certainly raised some concerning allegations—specifically that Ramos-Cortez, who is unlawfully in this country to begin with, has been charged with smuggling firearms into El Salvador. And particularly concerning to this Court is that Ramos-Cortez has allegedly previously failed to appear before an immigration judge.

Ramos-Cortez filed her Response in Opposition [3] a few hours ago. The Magistrate Judge had the benefit of a hearing where she could assess the credibility of the testimony and the arguments presented to her, including Ramos-Cortez' defense raised to the charge and Ramos-Cortez' explanations as to why she is not a flight risk and is not a danger to the community. Contrast that with this Court, which has a sterile record in front of it and a limited time frame to rule, as the Defendant is scheduled to be released tomorrow morning. The Court notes that it had just concluded its final hearing of the day close to 4:00 pm and has held court most of the day related to sentencings, plea hearings, and a pretrial conference. Further, the Defendant has raised arguments related to a defense of the charges against her and to whether she is a flight risk since she has a potentially intellectually disabled son and minor daughter—both of whom who are allegedly United States citizens. The Court finds that this case presents a close call on an expedited basis. This record is more proper for a de novo hearing. As a result, the Government's Motion [1] is taken under advisement, and the Court will conduct a de novo hearing on February 19, 2026, at 10:30 am.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 3, 2026, a criminal complaint was filed against Irma Antonia Ramos-Cortez for the smuggling of goods from the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554. This charge carries a maximum penalty of not more than ten years of imprisonment, not more than a $250,000 fine, and not more than three years of supervised release. The complaint alleges that on January 22, 2026, the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection officers assigned to the Gulfport, Mississippi, Port of Entry searched an export container of household goods destined for El Salvador. The Customs and Border Protection officers determined that the shipping company was associated with prior seizures connected to firearms and ammunition. During the search, the officers found two handguns—a disassembled Glock 22 pistol and an extended 26 round magazine and a Taurus G2C 9mm pistol with a 9mm magazine. The officers requested identification of the individual who paid for the package containing the handguns found within the shipping container. The individual was identified as Irma Antonia Ramos-Cortez. The investigation revealed that Ramos-Cortez allegedly prepackaged and sealed the package for pick up by the shipping company and declared that the package contained “clothes, perfumes, new tools, and shoes.” Ramos-Cortez paid four hundred and twenty-five dollars in cash and provided a copy of her El Salvador identification to ship the package. In her interview, Ramos-Cortez admitted to sending the package, but she claims she had no knowledge of what the package contained. Further investigation by Customs and Border Protection officers also determined that Irma Antonia Ramos-Cortez is present inside the United States illegally.

Ramos-Cortez was arrested in Houston, Texas, and was recently brought before a Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Texas for an initial appearance in cause number 4:26-mj-00089. At the initial appearance, the Government moved for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The Magistrate Judge denied the Government's detention motion and ordered Ramos-Cortez' release with conditions to be set at a hearing on the morning of February 11, 2026.

II. ANALYSIS

The Government asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge's Release Order and order the detention of Ramos-Cortez pending trial and resolution of this criminal action under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1), which provides:

(a) Review of a release order.—If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of the court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than Federal appellate court—

(1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release; and

(2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendments of release.

The motion shall be determined promptly.

18 U.S.C. § 3145(a). “By its plain language, the statute authorizes a district judge to review a magistrate judge's release order.” United States v. Salazar-Andujo, 599 F. Supp. 3d 491, 493 (W.D. Tex. 2022). “When the district court acts on a motion to revoke or amend a magistrate's pretrial detention order, the district court acts de novo and must make an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions for release.” United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 1985)). In doing so, “the district court, making an independent determination, can order pretrial detention even though the magistrate has refused to do so.” United States v. Stanford, 341 F. App'x 979, 981 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, the question before this Court is whether the Magistrate Judge's Release Order should be vacated.

“For pretrial detention to be imposed on a defendant, the lack of reasonable assurance of either the defendant's appearance, or the safety of others or the community, is sufficient; both are not required.” Rueben, 974 F.2d at 585 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). “On the issue of appearance, ‘the judicial officer must determine that it is more likely than not that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure an accused's appearance.’ ” United States v. Gonzalez, No. SA:24-MJ-1412-RBF, 2024 WL 5694011, *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2024); United States v. Betford, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 81505, *3 (N.D. Tex. 2026). In making such a determination, courts consider the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g):

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including--

(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and

(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

The Government argues that “a preponderance of the evidence exists that ‘no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person,’ and that clear and convincing evidence that ‘no condition or combination of conditions will reasonable assure ․ the safety of any other person and the community.’ ” [1], p. 4 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)). In light of the Section 3142(g) factors and the current record before this Court, however, to conduct a true de novo review, the Court finds that a hearing is warranted. By way of explanation, the Court will briefly discuss each factor in turn, as well as the evidence currently before this Court.

1. Nature and circumstances of the charged offense

Ramos-Cortez was charged in a criminal complaint for the smuggling of two firearms from the United States to El Salvador in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554. As noted by the Government, Ramos-Cortez is an illegal alien and does not have permission to possess a firearm in the United States, “let alone a license to ship to firearms internationally.” [1], p. 4. But, as Ramos-Cortez points out, this is just a charge, which “the government bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.” [3], p. 3. And at this stage in the proceedings, there is “no other information alleging, to any degree, that Ms. Ramos-Cortez, who has no criminal record, is in any way linked to weapon-trafficking.” [3], pps. 3-4. Although other courts have ultimately found similar facts weigh in favor of detention, this Court cannot make such a determination today. See Gonzalez, 2024 WL 5694011 at *2. To be sure, while Ramos-Cortez does face up to ten years in prison, and allegedly has the ability and skill set to move firearms internationally, taken together with the potential violent impact of the firearms Ramos-Cortez allegedly tried to smuggle into El Salvador, this factor does seem to weigh in favor of detention.

2. Weight of the evidence

The record before this Court reflects that the weight of the evidence against Ramos-Cortez may be quite strong. To begin, the package containing the two firearms—which was prepackaged and sealed upon pick up from the shipping company—was allegedly shipped by Ramos-Cortez, as shown by the packing slip with her name and information, the copy of her El Salvadorian passport provided to the shipping company, screenshots of WhatsApp messages between Ramos-Cortez and the shipping company, and Ramos-Cortez' admission that she shipped the package. The Government also asserts that Ramos-Cortez “regularly contacted the shipping company in order to check on the status of the container containing the two firearms.” [1], p. 5. But on the other hand, it sounds like Ramos-Cortez presented a type of defense that the Magistrate Judge may have found to be quite credible as to Ramos-Cortez' intent or knowledge. And this is particularly the type of information that is most helpful to be seen in a courtroom on de novo review. Although this factor is certainly clearer than the others currently before the Court, a de novo hearing would nevertheless be helpful—particularly since, at the time of this opinion, the Court has not received the transcript from the Magistrate Judge's hearing.

3. History and characteristics

Although Ramos-Cortez does not have any criminal history, her immigration history is particularly concerning. Ramos-Cortez allegedly entered the United States without inspection on July 15, 2002. She was apprehended by immigration officials on September 8, 2006, but was released on her own recognizance due to lack of adequate housing space. Ramos-Cortez was subsequently ordered to appear in immigration court before an immigration judge. She allegedly failed to appear, and the immigration judge ordered her removed in absentia. A final order of removal was issued on January 7, 2008. And courts have routinely found past failure to appear weighs in favor of detention. United States v. Rowe-Hodges, 454 F. Supp. 3d 618, 623 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2020); United States v. Jennings, 2020 WL 3840032, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Jul. 8. 2020).

Additionally, Ramos-Cortez is not a resident of the Southern District of Mississippi, and no evidence suggests that she has any local family or community ties to the charging district. In fact, as a lawful citizen of El Salvador, Ramos-Cortez almost certainly has significant family and other ties outside of the United States. Particularly since she was shipping a box of “clothes, perfumes, new tools, and shoes” to El Salvador. In affirming orders of detention, the Fifth Circuit has acknowledged that lack of ties to the charging district may pose a flight risk, which weighs in favor of detention. United States v. Morris, 608 F. App'x 299, 300 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). There is also nothing in the record demonstrating that she is incapable of fleeing—either physically or mentally or financially.

The Court is also presented, however, with evidence that Ramos-Cortez has two United States citizen-born children. Her son is twenty years old, and her daughter is twelve years old. According to Ramos-Cortez' attorney, her “son may be intellectually disabled.” [3], p. 4. And, if Ramos-Cortez was detained, he “would be expected, to a material degree, to be a caregiver to his sister.” Id. Although Ramos-Cortez is unlawfully in this country and has presumably been able to live in this country with the help of family for many years, without the same benefit of the hearing that the Magistrate Judge had, and potential testimony, this Court is unable to make a de novo finding as to this factor—at least on a sterile record.

4. Nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by release

Finally, while Ramos-Cortez does not have a criminal record, she may present a danger to the community of El Salvador if she were to flee back to her home country, as someone who has been charged with smuggling firearms into the country could be considered a danger. See United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the term “community” is not limited to the local or national community, but may include a community outside the United States). But, at this stage, the Government has not presented sufficient evidence in support of this factor. As a result, additional evidence and argument as to this factor is needed for this Court to make a de novo review.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Government's Motion for Review [1] is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT and set for a de novo hearing on February 19, 2026 at 10:30 am.

This, the 10th day of February, 2026.

TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE