Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20359/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bahram Mechanic
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20359

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BAHRAM MECHANIC,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-204-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bahram Mechanic appeals the district court’s denial in part of his motion 

for reconsideration of his pretrial detention order. The district court granted 

the motion to the extent that it reopened the detention proceedings and heard 

new evidence, but ultimately declined to reverse the pretrial detention order.

The district court’s decision rests upon its conclusion that Mechanic has 

failed to establish that any condition or combination of conditions will 

 

* 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

October 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20359 Document: 00513215678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2015
No. 15-20359

2

reasonably assure Mechanic’s presence at future proceedings if Mechanic is 

released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Absent an error of law, we 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. As a result, Mechanic has not shown that the district court abused 

its discretion. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20359 Document: 00513215678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2015