Case ID: f-appx_549/html/0269-01.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. Edgar A. LOCKETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-11097
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 17, 2013.
    Christy Lee Drake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ronald T. Spriggs, Sr., Esq., Spriggs Law Office, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A jury found Edgar A. Lockett, Jr., guilty of six counts of income tax evasion. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for release on bond pending sentencing. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion on the ground that Lockett failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he would not be a flight risk and danger to the community if released pending sentencing.

A convicted defendant does not have a constitutional right to bail. United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir.2006). A defendant “who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition ... of sentence” shall be detained pending sentencing “unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1).

Lockett does not dispute the district court’s factual findings on the issues of flight risk and danger to the community. Instead, he argues that the district court violated his rights to due process and confrontation when it allowed, over his objections, the introduction of hearsay evidence at the hearing on his motion for release on bond pending sentencing. However, even if we do not consider the few challenged instances of hearsay testimony, the totality of the evidence adduced at the bond hearing clearly supports the district court’s conclusion that Lockett has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). Lock-ett’s challenge fails.

AFFIRMED. Lockett’s motion for bond pending judgment is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.