Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0731-01.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. Meera SACHDEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-60639
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 2011.
    Jason Scott Gilbert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Bruce McDuff, Esq., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Meera Sachdeva appeals the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. The district court determined that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence at trial.

A judicial officer may order a defendant detained pending trial if the officer finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), (f); see United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir.1985). Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings in that court, a deferential standard of review that equates to an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir.1992).

The district court’s determination that the Government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence at trial is supported by the record. See § 3142; United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (5th Cir.1986). Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.