United States v. James

Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 1, 2022
No. 21-51053
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
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 King, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Allen Houston James appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
to revoke the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. James is indicted
with attempting to unlawfully kill the victim with malice aforethought by
stabbing the victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3), 13, and 1113, on or about
June 18, 2000, at the Fort Hood Military Reservation. Because the record
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053
supports the district court’s finding that James is a danger to the community
if he were released pending trial, we AFFIRM.
Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court’s pretrial
detention order if it is supported by the record, “a deferential standard of
review that we equate to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, United States v.
Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006), and factual findings are reviewed for
clear error, United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).
Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, a judicial officer may order a
defendant detained pending trial if he or she finds by clear and convincing
evidence that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably
assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e) & (f)(2)(B); United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir.
1985). “[I]n determining whether there are conditions of release that will
reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community,” the
judicial officer must consider the following factors: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the charged offense, including whether the offense is a
crime of violence; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant;
(3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, including his character,
physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources,
length of time in the locality, community ties, past conduct, criminal history,
reliability in making prior court appearances, and whether he was under a
sentence of imprisonment, parole, or probation at the time of the current
offense or arrest; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to a person
2
Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053
or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. § 3142(g);
Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.
The record supports the district court’s finding that James presents a
danger to the community if he were released pending trial. The district court
considered that James’s charged offense is a crime of violence, see United
States v. Smith, 957 F.3d 590, 594-96 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct.
828 (2020), the nature and circumstances of which include the alleged attack
of a woman at knife-point, attempt to sexually assault her, and repeated
stabbings which led to life-threatening injuries. The district court
acknowledged this conduct allegedly occurred 20 years ago but was serious
enough to find that James would be a danger to the community if he were
released pending trial. It also considered other factors including the lengthy
period of incarceration James would face if convicted and the fact that he has
no connection with the area. And finally, even though the district court did
not explicitly state it considered the weight of the evidence against James, at
the hearing the Government stated it would produce DNA evidence
connecting James to the alleged crime, and James’s counsel argued against
its reliability. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that James is a danger to the community and should not
be released pending trial. See United States v. Moreno, 857 F.3d 723, 726 (5th
Cir. 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion because “there is considerable
indication that [the defendant] is a danger to the community”).
Although James argues that some of the factors the district court
considered only apply to flight risk, we note only that the Bail Reform Act
makes no distinction between the listed factors and whether they apply only
to flight risk or dangerousness. See § 3142(g); United States v. Salerno, 481
U.S. 739, 751–52 (1987) (stating judicial officers evaluating dangerousness
are “guided by statutorily enumerated factors”). And here, the record as a
whole supports the district court’s conclusion regarding James’s
3
Case: 21-51053 Document: 00516187288 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
No. 21-51053
dangerousness. See Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586; see also United States v. Hare, 873
F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining that this court may uphold the order
if any of the reasons are sufficient to justify the detention of the defendant).
Because the district court considered the statutory factors, and the
record supports a finding by clear and convincing evidence of James’s
dangerousness, we AFFIRM.
4