Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hogan Tebbs BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-21
Citations: 126 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 04-20916
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hogan Tebbs BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hogan Tebbs BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20916.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 21, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Dick W. DeGuerin, John Moreno Parras, DeGuerin, Dickson & Hennessy, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hogan Tebbs Brooks appeals the district court's denial of his motion to review or revoke an order of pretrial detention. We remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of rendering reasons for its denial. The district court issued an order setting forth its factual findings and its conclusion that Brooks should be detained because he is charged with a crime of violence and he poses both a flight risk and a danger to the community.
We review the order issued by the district court, not that of the magistrate judge. United, States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1188 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986). Absent an error of law, this court 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 district court's ruling is supported by the record. See United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir.1989). The pretrial detention order is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.