United States v. Singleton

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