United States v. Edgar Lockett, Jr. ( 2013 )

Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-11097
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 17, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDGAR A. LOCKETT, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-12-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
A jury found Edgar A. Lockett, Jr., guilty of six counts of income tax
evasion. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for release on bond
pending sentencing. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion
on the ground that Lockett failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that
he would not be a flight risk and danger to the community if released pending
sentencing.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-11097
A convicted defendant does not have a constitutional right to bail.
United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006). A defendant “who has
been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition . . . of sentence”
shall be detained pending sentencing “unless the judicial officer finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to
the safety of any other person or the community if released.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(a)(1).
Lockett does not dispute the district court’s factual findings on the issues
of flight risk and danger to the community. Instead, he argues that the district
court violated his rights to due process and confrontation when it allowed, over
his objections, the introduction of hearsay evidence at the hearing on his
motion for release on bond pending sentencing. However, even if we do not
consider the few challenged instances of hearsay testimony, the totality of the
evidence adduced at the bond hearing clearly supports the district court’s
conclusion that Lockett has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that
he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1).
Lockett’s challenge fails.
AFFIRMED. Lockett’s motion for bond pending judgment is DENIED.
2