Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20809 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J OSE L UI S Z AVALA D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 04- C R
- 326- 6 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J ose L u i s Z a va l aa p p ea l s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s ord er d en yin g h i s m oti on to r evo ke hi s pre t r i aldet ent i on o r der . Zaval a has bee n i n c ust ody si nce hi s 2004 arrest . I n 200 8, w e reversed Z ava l a’ s j u ry con vi ct i on s of tw o coun t s of

conspi racy to p oss ess w i th i n ten t to d i strib u te a n dtw o cou n ts of p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te f

ive or m ore k i l og ra m s of coca i n e. Z a va l aco n te n d s t h a t h e is n ot a fli gh t ri sk an dtha t h i s con ti n u edd eten ti on v i olates h i s ri gh ts u n d er th e E i gh th A m en dm en t , t h e Sp eedyT ri alA ct , t h e B ai lR ef orm A ct , a n d th e D u e P roces s C l au se. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20809

2 Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e t e r m i n e dt h a tZ a v a l ad i dn o tr e b u tt h e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 1 4 2 p r e s u m p tio n th a t n o co n d itio n o rco m b in a tio n o f c o n d itio n s w o u ld r e a s o n a b lye n s u r e Z a v a la ’ s a p p e a r a n c e o rth e s a fe tyo f th e c o m m u n ity if Z a v a la w e r e re le a s e d . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 4 2 (e ) & (f). Ab s e n t a n e r r o r o f la w , w e w ill u p h o ld a di st r i c tc our t ’ s pre t r i aldet ent i on o r derif i ti s suppor t ed byt he proce ed i n gs b e lo w . Un i t ed S t ate s v. R u eben , 9 7 4 F .2d 5 8 0 , 5 8 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hare , 8 7 3 F .2d 7 9 6 , 7 9 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). Zav al a has notsho w n t hathe r e but t e d t he pr e s um pt i o n t hathe i s af l i ght r is k a n d th a t h is r e le a s e w o u ld p r e s e n t a d a n g e r to th e co m m u n ity . S ee§ 3142. Z ava l a di d n otrai se hi s c on st i t u t i on alargu m en t s i n t h e di st ri ctcourt . Fu rt h er, h e h a s ab a n d on edan y a rg u m e n t r e la tedto t h e S p ee d y T ri a lA ct byfa i l i n g to b r ie f it a d e q u a te ly . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . St e v e ns , 4 8 7 F .3d 2 3 2 , 2 4 2 n .1 (5 th C ir), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 3 3 6 (2 0 0 7 ). H is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t a r g u m e n t is f orecl osed. See Hare , 8 73 F. 2dat800 . The l ac k o f c o ns i de r at i o n o f

Za va l a’ s due pro c es s c l ai m w i l ln otres ul ti n a m ani fes tm i sc ar r i age of j ust i c e a s Zaval a had a m p le o p p o r tu n ityto p r e s e n t t h e a r g u m e n t t o t h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t. S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. B a rr ett , 837 F . 2d 134 1, 134 4 n . 2 ( 5th C i r. 198 8) ( decl i n i n g t o consi der d u e p ro ce ss a rg u m e n t ra ise dforth e firs t tim e ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n is s u p p o r te db yth e p r o c e e d i n g s b e lo w . S ee R u eben , 9 7 4 F . 2 da t5 8 6 . T h e p r e t r i a ld e t e n t i o n o r d e ri s A F F I RMED.