United States v. Wilbert Mathes ( 2015 )

Case: 14-31313 Document: 00512933754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-31313
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 11, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WILBERT MATHES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:14-CR-69-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Wilbert Mathes appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration of his detention order and the denial of his motion for a hearing
regarding the reconsideration of his detention order.
This court will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is
supported by the proceedings below, a deferential standard of review that this
court equates to an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Rueben, 974
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-31313 Document: 00512933754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-31313
F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). A judicial officer may order a defendant detained
pending trial if he finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “no condition
or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person,” or by clear and convincing evidence that “no condition of combination
of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the
community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) & (f)(2)(B); see United States v. Fortna, 769
F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). A detention hearing “may be reopened . . . if the
judicial officer 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). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1989).
Mathes argues that new and material circumstances would reasonably
assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community while he is out
on bail. Specifically, he contends that his mother, who can now act as his third-
party custodian, and other conditions he proposed in his motion to reconsider
would reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community.
Mathes, however, fails to establish that a third-party custodian would
reasonably assure the safety of the community. See 3142(f)(2). Moreover,
Mathes fails to adequately brief how the other conditions he proposed in his
motion to reconsider would reasonably assure the safety of the community and,
as a result, he has abandoned the issue. See Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Caliber
One Indem. Co., 465 F.3d 614, 621 n.34 (5th Cir. 2006); Geiger v. Jowers, 404
F.3d 371, 373 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005). As a result, he has not shown that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motions. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798.
AFFIRMED.
2