Case ID: f-appx_262/html/0618-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier CORTEZ, also known as Raul Cortez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-41227.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 24, 2008.
    Erin Blythe Martin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Donald Lee Bailey, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Cortez is charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in knowing possession of a firearm, making a false written statement to a licensed firearms dealer, and receiving a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number. Cortez appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order.

The district court’s decision rests upon its conclusion that Cortez has failed to establish that any condition or combination of conditions will reasonably ensure the safety of the community if Cortez is released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) & (f). Absent an error of law, this court will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below. United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir.1992). The same standard of review applies to the denial of a motion to reconsider a detention order. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir.1989).

Analysis of the factors set forth in § 3142(g) indicates that the district court’s conclusions are supported by the proceedings below. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586. The pretrial detention order is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.