Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Trevino MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-01
Citations: 491 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 12-50781
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Trevino MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 476–476

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Trevino MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50781
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 1, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Michael Finn, Attorney, Milner Finn Price, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Trevino Morales (Trevino) is charged with conspiring to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Trevino appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to revoke the magistrate judge's pretrial detention order.
The district court's decision rests upon its conclusion that Trevino has failed to establish that any condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure Trevino's presence at future proceedings if Trevino is released. 18 U.S.C. § 8142. 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 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. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.