United States v. Theodore Okechuku

Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-10645
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 3, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
THEODORE E. OKECHUKU,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CR-481-1
Before DENNIS, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Theodore E. Okechuku is charged with conspiracy to unlawfully
distribute and dispense hydrocodone outside the scope of professional practice
and not with a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Because the magistrate judge found there was probable cause to believe that
Okechuku continued to illegally dispense hydrocodone while on pretrial
release, his pretrial release was revoked and he was ordered detained. See 18
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 15-10645
U.S.C. § 3148(b). The district court denied Okechuku’s motion to revoke the
magistrate judge’s detention order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Okechuku’s
second motion for reconsideration was denied after a hearing by the magistrate
judge, and his third motion for reconsideration was denied by the district court
because Okechuku noted no new evidence or change in circumstances that had
not previously been considered by the court.
Okechuku appeals the denial of his third motion for reconsideration. He
argues that because he can no longer practice medicine or write prescriptions,
he no longer poses a danger to the community. He disagrees with the
magistrate judge’s finding that, given the fact that he previously violated the
release conditions set by the court, he is unlikely to abide by any condition or
combination of conditions for release. See § 3148(b). He also argues that the
district court failed to reevaluate the factors for release listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g) before denying his motion.
After reviewing the record, we have determined that the district court’s
denial of Okechuku’s third motion for reconsideration is supported by the
proceedings below and the factual basis of the decision is not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover,
given the finding that Okechuku was unlikely to abide by any condition or
combination of conditions for release, see § 3148(b)(2)(B), it was not necessary
for the district court to reevaluate the § 3142(g) factors for release before
denying Okechuku’s motion. The district court’s denial of Okechuku’s third
motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.
2