Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20465/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20465-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Khosrow Afghahi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20465

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KHOSROW AFGHAHI,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-204-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Khosrow Afghahi appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to 

revoke his pretrial detention order. The district court determined that 

Afghahi’s case involves a serious risk of flight and that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance if he is 

released. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(e)-(g), 3145(b). 

 

* 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

December 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-20465

2

Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court’s pretrial 

detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential 

standard of review that we have equated to the abuse-of-discretion standard. 

United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). The same standard 

governs our review of the denial of a § 3145(b) motion to revoke a detention 

order. Id. We generally look to whether “the evidence as a whole supports the 

conclusions of the proceedings” in the district court, United States v. Rueben, 

974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992), although we review questions of law de novo, 

United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006).

Afghahi argues that the district court applied incorrect legal standards. 

We disagree. The district court repeatedly articulated and applied the correct 

statutory standards. See § 3142(e)-(f). Any error in the district court’s

consideration of “community ties” to Houston, Texas, or the best interests of 

Afghahi’s proposed sureties was harmless as the court found that Afghahi 

lacks ties to the United States and that the proposed sureties would not be 

effective in reasonably assuring his appearance. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). In 

light of the statutory factors, see § 3142(g), “the evidence as a whole supports

the conclusions of the proceedings,” Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015