USA v. Walker, No. 08-30556 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-30555 Summary Calendar July 25, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. VERNON CLAVILLE Defendant-Appellant Consolidated with No. 08-30556 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL WALKER Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-50097-2 USDC No. 5:07-CR-50097-1 No. 08-30555 c/w No. 08-30556 Before KING, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Vernon Claville and Michael Walker were convicted following a jury trial of violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. In consolidated appeals, Claville and Walker appeal the district court s orders of detention pending sentencing. A defendant who has been convicted shall be detained pending sentencing unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released[.] 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). Our review is limited to abuse of discretion, and the detention order must be sustained if it is supported by the proceedings in the district court. See United States v. Cantu-Salinas, 789 F.2d 1145, 1146 (5th Cir. 1986). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that neither Claville nor Walker could meet the statute s demanding standard. Its orders of detention as to both defendants are supported by the proceedings in the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court s order of detention as to Vernon Claville and its order of detention as to Michael Walker. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.