Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bahram MECHANIC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-01
Citations: 619 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 15-20359
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bahram MECHANIC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 368–368

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bahram MECHANIC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-20359
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 1, 2015.
Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joel M. Androphy, Esq., Sarah Mary Frazier, Rachel I. Thompson, Berg & An-drophy, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bahram Mechanic appeals the district court's denial in part of his motion for reconsideration of his pretrial detention order. The district court granted the motion to the extent that it reopened the detention proceedings and heard new evidence, but ultimately declined to reverse the pretrial detention order.
The district court's decision rests upon its conclusion that Mechanic has failed to establish that any condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure Mechanic's presence at future proceedings if Mechanic is released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court's pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below. United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir.1992). The same standard of review applies to the denial of a motion to reconsider a detention order. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir.1989).
Analysis of the factors set forth in § 3142(g) indicates that the district court's conclusions are supported by the proceedings below. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586. As a result, Mechanic has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.