Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31313/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilbert Mathes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31313

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILBERT MATHES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CR-69-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wilbert Mathes appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for 

reconsideration of his detention order and the denial of his motion for a hearing 

regarding the reconsideration of his detention order.

This court will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is 

supported by the proceedings below, a deferential standard of review that this 

court equates to an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Rueben, 974 

* 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

February 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-31313 Document: 00512933754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-31313

F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). A judicial officer may order a defendant detained 

pending trial if he finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “no condition 

or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

person,” or by clear and convincing evidence that “no condition of combination 

of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the 

community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) & (f)(2)(B); see United States v. Fortna, 769 

F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). A detention hearing “may be reopened . . . if the 

judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant 

at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether 

there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of 

such person as required and the safety of any other person and the 

community.” § 3142(f)(2). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1989).

Mathes argues that new and material circumstances would reasonably 

assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community while he is out 

on bail. Specifically, he contends that his mother, who can now act as his thirdparty custodian, and other conditions he proposed in his motion to reconsider 

would reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community. 

Mathes, however, fails to establish that a third-party custodian would 

reasonably assure the safety of the community. See 3142(f)(2). Moreover, 

Mathes fails to adequately brief how the other conditions he proposed in his 

motion to reconsider would reasonably assure the safety of the community and, 

as a result, he has abandoned the issue. See Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Caliber 

One Indem. Co., 465 F.3d 614, 621 n.34 (5th Cir. 2006); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 

F.3d 371, 373 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005). As a result, he has not shown that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his motions. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-31313 Document: 00512933754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015