Filed: Apr. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-10280 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CRAIG E. CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-95-T - - - - - - - - - - April 24, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Craig E. Caldwell appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for release pe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-10280 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CRAIG E. CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-95-T - - - - - - - - - - April 24, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Craig E. Caldwell appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for release pen..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-10280
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CRAIG E. CALDWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CR-95-T
- - - - - - - - - -
April 24, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Craig E. Caldwell appeals from the district court's order
denying his motion for release pending trial. The district
court's decision rests on its conclusion that Caldwell is a
danger to any other person or the community and that no
conditions will reasonably assure safety. That conclusion is
supported by the record. See United States v. Rueben,
974 F.2d
580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 940 (1993).
Caldwell has also filed a motion for release pending appeal. The
motion is DENIED, and the district court's detention order is
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.