United States v. Khosrow Afghahi

627 F. App'x 365

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 21, 2015
• Docket: 15-20465
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Khosrow Afghahi appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to revoke his pretrial detention order. The district court determined that Afghahi’s case involves a serious risk of flight and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance if he is released. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(e)-(g), 3145(b).

Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential standard of review that we have equated to the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir.1989). The same standard governs our review of the denial of a § 3145(b) motion to revoke a detention order. Id. We generally look to whether “the evidence as a whole supports the conclusions of the proceedings” in the district court, United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir.1992), although we review questions of law de novo, United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir.2006).

Afghahi argues that the district court applied incorrect legal standards. We disagree. The district court repeatedly articulated and applied the correct statutory standards. See § 3142(e)-®. Any error in the district court’s consideration of “community ties” to Houston, Texas, or the best interests of Afghahi’s proposed sureties was harmless as the court found that Afghahi lacks ties to the United States and that the proposed sureties would not be effective in reasonably assuring his appearance. See Fed.R.Ceim.P. 52(a). In light of the statutory factors, see § 3142(g), “the evidence as a whole supports the conclusions of the proceedings,” Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.