Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10645/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodore E. Okechuku
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10645

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

THEODORE E. OKECHUKU,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-481-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Theodore E. Okechuku is charged with conspiracy to unlawfully 

distribute and dispense hydrocodone outside the scope of professional practice 

and not with a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Because the magistrate judge found there was probable cause to believe that 

Okechuku continued to illegally dispense hydrocodone while on pretrial 

release, his pretrial release was revoked and he was ordered detained. See 18 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 15-10645

2

U.S.C. § 3148(b). The district court denied Okechuku’s motion to revoke the 

magistrate judge’s detention order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Okechuku’s 

second motion for reconsideration was denied after a hearing by the magistrate 

judge, and his third motion for reconsideration was denied by the district court 

because Okechuku noted no new evidence or change in circumstances that had 

not previously been considered by the court. 

Okechuku appeals the denial of his third motion for reconsideration. He 

argues that because he can no longer practice medicine or write prescriptions, 

he no longer poses a danger to the community. He disagrees with the 

magistrate judge’s finding that, given the fact that he previously violated the 

release conditions set by the court, he is unlikely to abide by any condition or 

combination of conditions for release. See § 3148(b). He also argues that the 

district court failed to reevaluate the factors for release listed in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(g) before denying his motion. 

After reviewing the record, we have determined that the district court’s 

denial of Okechuku’s third motion for reconsideration is supported by the 

proceedings below and the factual basis of the decision is not clearly erroneous. 

See United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover, 

given the finding that Okechuku was unlikely to abide by any condition or 

combination of conditions for release, see § 3148(b)(2)(B), it was not necessary 

for the district court to reevaluate the § 3142(g) factors for release before 

denying Okechuku’s motion. The district court’s denial of Okechuku’s third 

motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2015