USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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, 922 F.2d 880, 882 (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, 938 F.2d 1412, 1417 (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,

    835 F.2d 15, 18 (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, 922

    F.2d at 883.

        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, 938 F.2d at

    1417.

        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, 495 U.S. 711,

    716-17 (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.