United States v. Mba
This text of United States v. Mba (United States v. Mba) 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.
Opinion
Case: 25-20436 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 25-20436 FILED December 4, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Leslie Chinedu Mba,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-325-1 ______________________________
Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The district court granted the Government’s motion to revoke Leslie Chinedu Mba’s pretrial release and denied his ensuing motions to reconsider. On appeal, Mba contends he is entitled to bail pending trial because his presence in the United States is lawful and there is no evidence he presents a flight risk or a threat to others.
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20436 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2025
No. 25-20436
Our review is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585-86 (5th Cir. 1992). The record does not include the underlying revocation motion, and Mba declined to order a transcript of the hearing when that motion was decided. On this record, Mba fails to show that “the evidence as a whole” is insufficient to support the finding that he presents a flight risk. Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). We also are unable to review any finding regarding his immigration status because the record contains none. See United States v. Moreno, 857 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 2017). Mba shows no abuse of discretion in the district court’s orders. See id.; see also Rueben, 974 F.2d at 585-86. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Mba, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mba-ca5-2025.