Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory DOTSON, Defendant-Appellant
Gregory Dotson is charged in a criminal complaint with possession of five grams or more of actual methamphetamine with intent to distribute and felony possession of a firearm. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals the district court's order of detention pending trial.
“Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court's pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential standard of review that we equate to the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review questions of law de novo, United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006), and we review factual findings supporting an order of detention for clear error, United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990). Dotson does not dispute that, in light of the drug charge, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community. See § 3142(e)(3)(A).
Although Dotson's recent behavior during his pretrial release in a related Texas case is relevant to the consideration of his history and characteristics, so, too, is his lengthy criminal history. See § 3142(g)(3). Moreover, Dotson ignores that the charged offenses involve both a controlled substance and a firearm and that his criminal history supports the district court's finding that his release would pose a danger to the community. See § 3142(g)(1) and (4). The proceedings below amply support Dotson's pretrial detention such that the district court did not abuse its discretion, particularly given the applicable presumption against release. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 798; § 3142(e)(3)(A).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-50299
Decided: May 12, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)