[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 98-1321

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

JOSE R. HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

Teodoro Mendez Lebron on brief for appellant.

April 22, 1998

Per Curiam. Upon independent review of the portions of the appellate record provided to us, and with due deference to the district court's findings of fact, see United States v. Tortora,

(1st Cir. 1990), we conclude that the pre-trial detention order should not be disturbed. Specifically, it appears that the government sustained its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant poses such a substantial flight risk that no conditions will reasonably assure his appearance at trial. SeeUnited States v. Dillon,

(1st Cir. 1991). Defendant's rebuttal evidence, including his family and community ties, must be weighed along with the presumption arising under 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and the other factors listed in 3142(g). In our view, that rebuttal evidence did not outweigh the statutory presumption, the information regarding defendant's role in importing an exceptionally large quantity of drugs, and the risk that defendant will flee to avoid a long term of imprisonment. See United States v. Palmer-Contreras,

(1st Cir. 1987). The district court was not required to give that rebuttal evidence more weight or to explain further its rejection of the proposed conditions of release. Accordingly, we do not conclude that the district court should have reached a different result. See Tortora,

. Because we conclude that the detention was justified based on risk of flight, we need not consider whether it also was justified based on dangerousness. See Dillon,

. We also reject defendant's argument that he is entitled to release due to the district court's delay in ruling on his motion. See United States v. Montalvo-Murillo,

(1990) ("Neither the timing requirements nor any other part of the [Bail Reform] Act can be read to require, or even suggest, that a timing error must result in release of a person who should otherwise be detained."). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.