IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11278
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELIZABETH P. JOHNSTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 01-CR-246-ALL
--------------------
November 14, 2001
Before JOLLY, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elizabeth P. Johnston was charged in a two-count indictment
with mail fraud. The magistrate judge ordered that Johnston be
detained without bond pending disposition of the case. Johnston
moved the district court to reopen the detention hearing, arguing
that the magistrate judge had erred in concluding that the case
involved a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A).
The motion was denied and Johnston has appealed the district
court's order.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-11278
-2-
Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court's
order "if it is supported by the proceedings below," a
deferential standard of review which we have equated to the
abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d
796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989).
Johnston does not contend that the district court erred in
concluding that she has not met the standard for reopening the
detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). She argues,
instead, that the district court should have revoked the
magistrate judge's detention order because the Government did not
contend expressly that the case involved a crime of violence.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that the issue had been presented adequately to the magistrate
judge by the Government's motion.
The district court concluded that the magistrate judge had
determined properly that the case involved a crime of violence
under the reasoning of our opinion in United States v. Byrd, 969
F.2d 106, 109-10 (5th Cir. 1992). Johnston contends that the
portion of the Byrd opinion relied upon by the district court was
dictum and that Byrd was decided wrongly. Johnston has failed to
show that the district court abused its discretion in applying
Byrd. The district court's order is
AFFIRMED.