IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20310
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANADRICK KEMONT DRONES,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CR-125-3
- - - - - - - - - -
October 5, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Government appeals from the district court’s order
granting conditions of release for appellee pending retrial. The
Government argues that the district court’s order of release is
not supported by the proceedings below given the presumption that
no condition of release would assure the safety of the community
and in consideration of the other factors identified in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-20310
-2-
Absent an error of law, this court will uphold a district
court's pretrial detention order if it is supported by the
proceedings below, see United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250
(5th Cir. 1985), a standard of review this court has equated to
an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Rueben, 974
F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992).
Janadrick Kemont Drones emphasizes his family ties and their
willingness to provide him with a place to stay if he is
released, but his risk of flight is not at issue. Drones argues
that the Government’s case is weak. The Government notes that
Drones has already been convicted once by a jury, and its case
against Drones includes Sergeant Haire’s eyewitness testimony as
to Drones’ presence in the Mustang during the drug transaction.
The district court, of course, has set aside Drones’ conviction
and ordered a new trial. That decision, however, is currently
under review by this court.
The Government has presented some inculpatory evidence.
United States v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1988).
Under the circumstances, however, we consider this factor to
favor neither his release nor his continued detention.
The rebuttable presumption that Drones poses a risk to the
community remains a factor weighing against his release. United
States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). Drones
violated the terms of his state deferred adjudication, he
thereafter violated the terms of his state parole, and later
still, he violated the conditions of his release pending the
Government’s prior direct appeal in the instant proceeding. His
No. 99-20310
-3-
past conduct therefore weighs against his release.
§ 3142(g)(3)(A). His history of drug abuse, criminal history,
and presence on parole at the time of the current offense also
weigh against his release.
We conclude that the evidence as a whole does not support
the conclusion that Drones is not a danger to the community.
Accordingly, the district court's decision to issue conditions of
release for Drones is not supported by the proceedings below and,
thus, constitutes an abuse of discretion. The court’s decision
is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED to the court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.