UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-20386
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WAJEH KHALAF,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CR-M-95-306-1)
_________________________________________________________________
(June 23, 1995)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal concerns petitioner's motion for release from
incarceration pending trial. Petitioner is charged with violations
of interstate transportation of stolen property, the receipt of
stolen property having been transported in interstate commerce, and
credit card fraud in connection with a travel agency scheme.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) requires a hearing for the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no
precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-
settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on
the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published.
determination:
whether any condition or combination of
conditions . . . will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required and the
safety of any other person and the community .
. . in a case that involves - - (A) a serious
risk that the person will flee; or (B) a
serious risk that the person will obstruct or
attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten,
injure, or intimidate . . . a prospective
witness.
An order of detention premised on a serious risk of flight must be
supported by the preponderance of the evidence. United States v.
Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). An order of detention
premised on the danger to others due to the accused's threats or
attempts to threaten or intimidate potential witnesses must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
After affording petitioner an evidentiary hearing, the
magistrate judge denied his request for release finding him to be
both a flight risk and a threat to prospective witnesses. The
district court, after a de novo review, adopted the findings of the
magistrate and affirmed the denial of the motion for release. We
review a lower court's conclusions for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) cert. denied,
113 S. Ct. 1336 (1993).
Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to
support the denial of petitioner's motion. Accordingly, we find no
abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED.
2