Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, aka Special K, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-26
Citations: 314 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 08-10309
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, aka Special K, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 86–86

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, aka Special K, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-10309.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed Feb. 26, 2009.
Loretta Sheehan, Assistant U.S., USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stuart N. Fujioka, Esquire, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James H. Bohol appeals from the district court's order finding probable cause to detain him pending a hearing regarding revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bohol contends that the district court erred in determining that he is a flight risk. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bohol had not met his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk. See United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529, 1530 (9th Cir.1994).
Bohol's contention that his detention violates the Eighth Amendment lacks merit. See United States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755, 756 (9th Cir.1986); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir.2001).
We decline to consider Bohol's remaining arguments, which he raises for the first time in his reply brief. See Eberle v. Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.