United States v. Jose Artemio Cantu-Salinas

789 F.2d 1145, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25220
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 15, 1986
Docket86-2214
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 789 F.2d 1145 (United States v. Jose Artemio Cantu-Salinas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Artemio Cantu-Salinas, 789 F.2d 1145, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25220 (5th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

GEE, Circuit Judge.

Cantu, charged with cocaine distribution and an associated conspiracy, appeals from denial by the trial judge of his motion to revoke an order detaining him without bail. Our review of such actions by the district court is limited, and we have stated that its order must be sustained “if it is supported by the proceedings” in that court. United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1189 (1986), citing and quoting from United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir.1985). 1 The judge concluded that Cantu presented a substantial risk of flight and that no set of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial. We agree.

Cantu, a resident alien, is a Mexican citizen who visits Mexico several times a year and has a sister residing there. He is divorced, unemployed, and owns no property in this country. The charges against Cantu — charges which the government has produced credible evidence upholding — are serious ones indeed, exposing him upon conviction to maximum punishments of forty years in prison and a half-million dollar fine. In such circumstances we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying Cantu bail.

AFFIRMED.

1

. As an appellate court, we possess no greater competence to review factual findings from this cold record than from one assembled at a trial on the merits. That being the case, the "clearly erroneous” standard seems a proper gauge of record support for such findings. See e.g. United States v. Kreczmer, 636 F.2d 108, 110 (5th Cir. 1981)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Dilmar Pivaral-Deleon
678 F. App'x 273 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Mark Kuhrt
504 F. App'x 297 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Bernardo Lacour
470 F. App'x 375 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Claville
285 F. App'x 176 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Abdallah
Fifth Circuit, 2001
United States v. John Richard McConnell
842 F.2d 105 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Yolanda Valenzuela-Verdigo
815 F.2d 1011 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
789 F.2d 1145, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-artemio-cantu-salinas-ca5-1986.