Court Opinion

ID: 9366712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 19:00:37.641813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.629998
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30800         Document: 00516625699             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                           January 27, 2023
                                       No. 22-30800
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Michael Craig Singleton, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:22-CR-264-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Michael Singleton, Jr., is charged with conspiracy to distribute and
   possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance
   containing a detectable amount of cocaine, possession with intent to distrib-
   ute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
   amount of cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30800        Document: 00516625699         Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                     No. 22-30800

   trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); 21 U.S.C. § 846;
   18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He appeals an order by the district court affirming
   an order of detention from the magistrate judge (M.J.).
          Singleton contends that the district court wrongly affirmed. He main-
   tains that he successfully rebutted the presumption that no condition or com-
   bination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial and the
   safety of the community and avers that the government did not otherwise
   establish that he should be denied release. He posits that a proper consider-
   ation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors supports that he was not a danger or
   a flight risk. Also, he asserts that the district court did not conduct a de novo
   review of the order of detention.
          “Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court’s pretrial
   detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential stan-
   dard of review that we equate to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
   States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). We review questions of law de novo, United States v.
   Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006), and factual findings supporting an
   order of detention for clear error, United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223
   (5th Cir. 1990).
          In light of the charged offenses, a rebuttable presumption arises that
   no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure Singleton’s
   appearance at trial and the safety of the community. See § 3142(e)(3)(A), (B).
   The presumption shifts to a defendant the burden of producing rebuttal
   evidence. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798; United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107,
   1110 (5th Cir. 1987). The mere production of evidence does not completely
   rebut the presumption. Hare, 873 F.2d at 798, 799; see § 3142(e)(1), (3). In
   applying the burden-shifting framework, the district court should consider
   the § 3142(g) factors.

                                          2
Case: 22-30800      Document: 00516625699            Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                      No. 22-30800

          The evidence as a whole “supports the conclusions of the proceedings
   below.” United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). In partic-
   ular, Singleton has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
   determining that he poses a danger to the community and that, in light of the
   applicable statutory presumption, no condition or combination of conditions
   would mitigate concerns about the threat of danger that he presents. See Rue-
   ben, 974 F.2d at 586; Hare, 873 F.2d at 798. Because the finding of danger-
   ousness is supported by the record, we need not address whether Singleton
   also was a flight risk. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.
          This evidence specifically supports that Singleton is dangerous and
   should be subject to pretrial detention. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586; Hare,
   873 F.2d at 799. The decision is supported by each of the § 3142(g) factors:
   the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the weight of the evidence, the
   defendant’s history and characteristics, and the nature and seriousness of the
   danger to any person or the community that the defendant’s release would
   present. Although Singleton asserts that his ties to his family and to the local-
   ity in which he faces trial support that detention is unwarranted, he lived and
   worked with his family at the time of his crimes and purportedly was able to
   traffic large amounts of cocaine from Texas to Louisiana without his family’s
   being aware of his illegal conduct. Any favorable evidence as to his history
   and characteristics is insufficient to establish that the district court abused its
   discretion in its assessment of this particular factor and does not support that
   the court erred in its consideration of all four § 3142(g) factors.            See
   § 3142(g)(3)(A); Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.
          Singleton also has not shown that the district court failed to conduct a
   de novo review. There is no indication that it impermissibly deferred to the
   M.J.’s ruling; instead, the record supports that the district court decided that
   Singleton’s challenges to the M.J.’s ruling lacked merit and that the M.J. had
   correctly determined that Singleton should be detained. The record does not

                                           3
Case: 22-30800      Document: 00516625699          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                    No. 22-30800

   establish that the district court did not rely on its own review and assessment
   of the evidence and of the parties’ arguments in deciding whether Singleton
   should be detained.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4