IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-10128

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER AUNDRE FAULKNER, also known as Christopher A. 

Faulkner,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-500-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Aundre Faulkner appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to reconsider or revoke his pretrial detention, arguing that his 

prolonged detention violates due process. We review the ultimate legal 

question concerning a due process challenge de novo, United States v. Burns, 

526 F.3d 852, 859 (5th Cir. 2008), deferring to the district court’s underlying 

* 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

April 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 20-10128 Document: 00515384283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 20-10128

2

factfinding unless it is clearly erroneous, see United States v. Molina-Solorio, 

577 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Stanford, 394 F. 

App’x 72, 74 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying these standards to due process challenge 

to detention). In considering whether pretrial detention violates due process, 

we consider the original justification for the detention as well as “the length of 

the detention that has in fact occurred or may occur in the future, the nonspeculative nature of future detention, the complexity of the case, and whether 

the strategy of one side or the other occasions the delay.” United States v. Hare, 

873 F.2d 796, 801 (5th Cir. 1989).

Faulkner fails to show error in the district court’s rejection of his due 

process claim. Serious concerns about flight risk supported the original 

detention order. Faulkner was arrested while he was about to board a plane 

to London. He had in his possession gold bars, gold coins, more than $10,000 

in cash, and his birth certificate. The government had information that 

Faulkner’s mother was arranging for him to live in Lebanon. This strong basis 

for the original detention order weighs against Faulkner’s due process claim. 

Id. 

Although the length of the detention (roughly 18 months) weighs in favor 

of a due process violation, this factor alone is not dispositive and courts have 

allowed much lengthier detentions. Stanford, 394 F. App’x at 75 (citing cases 

rejecting due process challenges to detentions lasting thirty or more months). 

The uncertain length of future detention also supports Faulkner, though the 

district court is working with the parties to set a trial date. But the complexity 

of this investment fraud case weighs against a due process violation, and we 

find no basis for disrupting the district court’s factual determination that the 

delay is not the government’s fault. Id. (noting these factors weight against a 

due process finding). Instead, much of the delay resulted from Faulkner’s 

 Case: 20-10128 Document: 00515384283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 20-10128

3

withdrawal of his guilty plea after the district court rejected a plea agreement. 

That unusual situation and the resulting delay did not transform the purpose 

of this pretrial detention from a permissible regulatory one into an 

unconstitutionally punitive one.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 20-10128 Document: 00515384283 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2020