UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-20714
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
MARIA MARTA CISNEROS,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CR-H-95-195-4)
______________________________________________________
(October 10, 1995)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant, Maria Marta Cisneros, challenges the conditions
fixed by the district court for her release by having filed a
notice of appeal from that order and by filing in this Court an
Emergency Motion For Release Pending Trial. The motion is denied
and the order appealed from affirmed.
Cisneros was indicted for conspiracy to assist and attempting
to assist the escape of certain convicted felons from two Texas
county jails, and for assisting two of them to prevent or hinder
1
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should not be published.
their punishment. At her initial appearance the magistrate judge
set her bond at $5,000,000 and ordered detention until the bond was
posted. Appellant moved for review. The district court granted
the motion, held a hearing and thereafter conditioned her release
upon posting a cash or surety bond of $5,000,000. He found that,
considering the charges, the proximity to the border and the fact
that conviction would carry a substantial prison sentence, there
was substantial risk that Appellant would flee, and that she was a
danger to the community.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting her detention and the factual findings of the district
court. Appellant has not furnished a transcript of the detention
hearing. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a) requires that an
appellant who questions the factual basis for the district court's
order file a transcript of any release proceedings in the district
court or an explanation of why a transcript has not been obtained.
Rule 9.3 of this Court implements the Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure. Cisneros' counsel, in a letter to this Court, states
that obtaining a transcript of the hearing would cause undue delay
and asks this Court to proceed without a transcript. We are
obviously unable to reexamine the sufficiency of the evidence and
whether or not it supports the factual findings of the district
court without a transcript. Accordingly, Appellant's motion for
release pending trial is DENIED and the decision of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
2
3