IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51114
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ZOLLINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CR-180-1-EP
--------------------
December 21, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Zollino appeals the district court’s detention order
denying his request for release pending trial. He argues that
the district court’s judgment should not be given deference
because the district court erroneously stated that the detention
hearing transcript was not part of the record and the district
court did not review the transcript. Although the record
indicates that the district court did not review the transcript
of the detention hearing, the district court’s judgment may be
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51114
-2-
affirmed on any ground supported by the record. See United
States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 687 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s determination that Zollino should be
detained pending trial because he poses a flight risk is
supported by the record. Zollino has been indicted for 19 counts
of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money
laundering, and he faces a possible sentence of up tp 260 years
of imprisonment, very large criminal fines, and restitution of
approximately $325 million. The evidence presented at the
detention hearing indicates that Zollino is a Mexican citizen,
his wife is a Spanish citizen, and they both frequently travel
internationally. Zollino has no real property in the United
States, and the Government presented evidence indicating the
Zollino has transferred assets outside of the United States and
has some control over assets which are listed in the name of his
mother and/or his father. Zollino failed to comply with the
magistrate judge’s order to provide a report prepared by the
bankruptcy receiver concerning his assets and those assets in the
names of others over which he has direct or indirect control.
Without such financial information, the district court could not
determine the appropriate amount of a bond or security for a bond
which would be sufficient to ensure Zollino’s appearance for the
trial. Because the district court’s detention order is supported
by the record, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Zollino’s
motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.