United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-51053

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Allen Houston James, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:21-CR-106-1

Before King, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Allen Houston James appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

to revoke the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. James is indicted 

with attempting to unlawfully kill the victim with malice aforethought by 

stabbing the victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3), 13, and 1113, on or about 

June 18, 2000, at the Fort Hood Military Reservation. Because the record 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053

2

supports the district court’s finding that James is a danger to the community 

if he were released pending trial, we AFFIRM.

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

detention order if it is supported by the record, “a deferential standard of 

review that we equate to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. 

Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, United States v. 

Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006), and factual findings are reviewed for 

clear error, United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, a judicial officer may order a 

defendant detained pending trial if he or she finds by clear and convincing 

evidence that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably 

assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(e) & (f)(2)(B); United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 

1985). “[I]n determining whether there are conditions of release that will 

reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community,” the 

judicial officer must consider the following factors: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the charged offense, including whether the offense is a 

crime of violence; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; 

(3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, including his character, 

physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, 

length of time in the locality, community ties, past conduct, criminal history, 

reliability in making prior court appearances, and whether he was under a 

sentence of imprisonment, parole, or probation at the time of the current 

offense or arrest; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to a person 

Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053

3

or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. § 3142(g); 

Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.

The record supports the district court’s finding that James presents a 

danger to the community if he were released pending trial. The district court 

considered that James’s charged offense is a crime of violence, see United 

States v. Smith, 957 F.3d 590, 594-96 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 

828 (2020), the nature and circumstances of which include the alleged attack 

of a woman at knife-point, attempt to sexually assault her, and repeated 

stabbings which led to life-threatening injuries. The district court 

acknowledged this conduct allegedly occurred 20 years ago but was serious 

enough to find that James would be a danger to the community if he were 

released pending trial. It also considered other factors including the lengthy 

period of incarceration James would face if convicted and the fact that he has 

no connection with the area. And finally, even though the district court did 

not explicitly state it considered the weight of the evidence against James, at 

the hearing the Government stated it would produce DNA evidence 

connecting James to the alleged crime, and James’s counsel argued against 

its reliability. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that James is a danger to the community and should not 

be released pending trial. See United States v. Moreno, 857 F.3d 723, 726 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion because “there is considerable 

indication that [the defendant] is a danger to the community”).

Although James argues that some of the factors the district court 

considered only apply to flight risk, we note only that the Bail Reform Act 

makes no distinction between the listed factors and whether they apply only 

to flight risk or dangerousness. See § 3142(g); United States v. Salerno, 481 

U.S. 739, 751–52 (1987) (stating judicial officers evaluating dangerousness 

are “guided by statutorily enumerated factors”). And here, the record as a 

whole supports the district court’s conclusion regarding James’s

Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053

4

dangerousness. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586; see also United States v. Hare, 873 

F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining that this court may uphold the order 

if any of the reasons are sufficient to justify the detention of the defendant). 

Because the district court considered the statutory factors, and the 

record supports a finding by clear and convincing evidence of James’s

dangerousness, we AFFIRM. 

Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2022