Court Opinion

ID: 9395326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 20:00:45.897781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.515740
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                        ____________
No. 23-3026                                                  September Term, 2022
                                                                     1:23-cr-00005-APM-1
                                                        Filed On: May 17, 2023
United States of America,

                 Appellee

       v.

Eric Christie,

                 Appellant

             ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:         Millett, Pillard, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                       JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties.
The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.
See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. It is

         ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 17, 2023 order
denying appellant’s motion for revocation of the pretrial detention order be affirmed.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred by finding that no
condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure his
appearance as required. See United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th 449, 454–55
(D.C. Cir. 2021). The district court did not err by relying on evidence of appellant’s
dangerousness when determining that he is a flight risk. Indeed, as part of its flight-risk
analysis, the district court was required to assess the danger posed by appellant’s
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546,
550–51 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (analyzing each of the § 3142(g) factors, including the nature
and seriousness of the danger posed, when determining whether the defendant was a
flight risk). And appellant has not shown that the district court clearly erred by
concluding that his three encounters with law enforcement in 2022 demonstrated a
pattern of unwillingness to comply with law enforcement and that he poses a danger to
others. See Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th at 455 (“Where there are two permissible views of
the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).
                  United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 23-3026                                                 September Term, 2022

         Although the district court did not explicitly find that appellant was eligible for
pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A), the district court did find by a
preponderance of the evidence that appellant is a flight risk under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
Because “[t]he decision whether to hold a hearing occurs based on even less
information than [the ultimate] decision to detain or release,” United States v. Singleton,
182 F.3d 7, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the
government satisfied the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden for risk of flight
necessarily means that there was sufficient evidence to hold a detention hearing in the
first place.

       Finally, given that the district court did not clearly err by finding that no condition
or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of appellant as
required, the district court was not required to make further specific findings on the
record with respect to the likely effectiveness of the release conditions proposed by
appellant. See, e.g., United States v. Quaglin, 851 F. App’x 218, 219 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
(per curiam).

      Because appellant has shown no clear error with respect to the district court’s
conclusion that he is a flight risk, we need not consider whether the district court applied
the wrong standard when also concluding that appellant is a danger to others. See
United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 98 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

       Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is
directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the
resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See
Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                         Per Curiam

                                                          FOR THE COURT:
                                                          Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                   BY:    /s/
                                                          Daniel J. Reidy
                                                          Deputy Clerk

                                           Page 2