UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSE ARTEMIO CANTU-SALINAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying bail, as the defendant presented a substantial risk of flight.
Cantu, a resident alien and Mexican citizen, is divorced, unemployed, owns no property in the U.S., and frequently visits Mexico where he has family. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bail Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
GEE, Circuit Judge.
Cantu, charged with cocaine distribution and an associated conspiracy, appeals from denial by the trial judge of his motion to revoke an order detaining him without bail. Our review of such actions by the district court is limited, and we have stated that its order must be sustained “if it is supported by the proceedings” in that court. United States v. Westbrook, 780 F. 2d 1185, 1189 (1986), citing and quoting from United States v. Fortna, 769 F. 2d 243, 250 (5th Cir.1985).1 The judge concluded that Cantu presented a substantial risk of flight and that no set of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial. We agree.
Cantu, a resident alien, is a Mexican citizen who visits Mexico several times a year and has a sister residing there. He is divorced, unemployed, and owns no property in this country. The charges against Cantu — charges which the government has produced credible evidence upholding — are serious ones indeed, exposing him upon conviction to maximum punishments of forty years in prison and a half-million dollar fine. In such circumstances we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying Cantu bail.
AFFIRMED.
. As an appellate court, we possess no greater competence to review factual findings from this cold record than from one assembled at a trial on the merits. That being the case, the "clearly erroneous” standard seems a proper gauge of record support for such findings. See e.g. United States v. Kreczmer, 636 F. 2d 108, 110 (5th Cir. 1981)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 1262 (5th Cir. 1988)
-
United States v. McCONNELL, 842 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1988)
-
United States v. Valenzuela-Verdigo, 815 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1987)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985)
- United States v. Kreczmer, 636 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1986)