Opinion ID: 6330341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Flight Risk Classification

Text: Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, et seq., the Government may seek to detain an individual if there is “a serious risk that such person will flee” and fail to appear for trial. Id. § 3142(f)(2)(A). The district court here determined that there is “a serious risk that Maaz and Saad Aziz will flee,” and the brothers contend that that determination was an abuse of discretion. To begin, we note again the deferential standard of review applicable to this case. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586. We owe great deference to the district court, which held a two-day hearing and observed the witnesses. We cannot reverse the district court in its factual determinations absent a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 4 Case: 21-40878 Document: 00516273321 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 21-40878 We see no such error. The district court reasonably concluded that the brothers presented a flight risk based on several facts. On a corporate level, SCS has foreign ties—Saad Aziz is the director of SCS Canada, and the brothers traveled to Canada prior to SCS Canada’s incorporation. Moreover, SCS opened a branch in Dubai in 2020; Saad Aziz was listed as the branch manager; and Maaz Aziz traveled to Dubai around the time that the branch was established. The court also found that SCS was still operating and “bringing in significant amounts of money,” which the brothers could access. Additionally, the court cited the ongoing investigation into as many as eighty different SCS bank accounts and that there was evidence SCS transferred money out of the country after law enforcement executed a search warrant on an SCS warehouse. On a personal level, the brothers have “several cousins” in Pakistan. Saad Aziz has at least one Pakistani bank account and owns real property in Pakistan. Moreover, records from Customs and Border Protection showed that between 2018 and 2021, Maaz Aziz had “flown internationally at least thirteen times, traveling to Mexico, Qatar, Columbia, Canada, and Dubai.” During that same period, Saad Aziz left the United States at least six times, traveling to France, Dubai, Canada, and Mexico. The brothers make several arguments in response to this evidence. Primarily, they describe their connections to Pakistan as loose; their connections to Texas as strong; and dispute the resources that SCS has. These arguments support the notion that there is evidence that they were not flight risks, but there is evidence they were. That is exactly the situation where we defer to the district court rather than decide factual disputes ourselves. We cannot say, given the facts described above, that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the brothers are a flight risk. 5 Case: 21-40878 Document: 00516273321 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 21-40878