Court Opinion

ID: 9392907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 18:00:29.195365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.824193
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50044       Document: 00516741508             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-50044
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                                  May 8, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Allen Houston James,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:21-CR-106-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Allen Houston James appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
   to reopen his detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). We review the
   district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hare,
   873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). Absent an error of law, we will affirm if

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50044      Document: 00516741508           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                     No. 23-50044

   the district court’s order is supported by the proceedings. United States v.
   Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). A district court may reopen a
   detention hearing any time before trial if it finds “that information exists that
   was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material
   bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will
   reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of
   any other person and the community.” § 3142(f)(2); see Hare, 873 F.2d at
   799.
          According to James, reopening of the detention hearing was
   warranted based on the following new evidence which he alleged the
   Government provided in discovery nearly one year after his detention: (1) a
   second source of DNA was found on the victim’s bedsheet, which was later
   identified as belonging to a known sex offender; (2) DNA evidence was also
   found on a cigarette butt in the victim’s room; (3) investigators previously
   interviewed James, verified his alibi, and excluded him as a suspect; (4) the
   victim could not identify James as the attacker from a photograph; (5) the
   package containing the victim’s sheet was torn open and possibly
   contaminated; and (6) the victim did not recall whether there was a sexual
   component to the attack. He also relies on a report written by Michael J.
   Spence, Ph.D., an expert hired by the defense.
          James has not established that this information is new or was unknown
   to him at the time of the previous detention hearing or why he could not have
   obtained it earlier. See § 3142(f)(2); Hare, 873 F.2d at 799. Further, even if
   the evidence is new or was previously unknown to him, the district court did
   not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because James did
   not show that the evidence established he was less likely to be a flight risk or
   a danger to any person or the community. See § 3142(f)(2); Rueben, 974 F.2d
   at 586; Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.

                                              2
Case: 23-50044   Document: 00516741508      Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                             No. 23-50044

         AFFIRMED.

                                      3