United States v. Ledoux

── United States v. Ledoux ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: Non Direct Criminal Case: 26-30130 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED No. 26-30130 May 19, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Carter Miles Ledoux, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:26-CR-68-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Carter Miles Ledoux was indicted in this proceeding for conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States, cyberstalking, transmission of threats through interstate commerce, and making a threat or maliciously false report concerning an attempt to harm someone or damage property by means of an explosive. In a separate proceeding, he was charged with possession of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-30130 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 No. 26-30130 child pornography. He appeals the district court’s decision that revoked the magistrate judge’s (MJ) order of release and ordered Ledoux’s pretrial detention. Ledoux contends that the district court gave inadequate reasons for its decision to reject the MJ’s ruling. However, the district court’s written order, if read in context, provided adequate reasons for the detention ruling. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i); Fed. R. App. P. 9(a). Additionally, Ledoux argues that the district court’s decision was not supported by the proceedings below. He asserts that a proper evaluation of the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) establishes that there are conditions of release that will reasonably guarantee the safety of any other person and the community. The Government argues that the district court’s detention ruling was supported by the proceedings. Because the district court issued its own decision and did not accept the MJ’s ruling, we consider only the district court’s order. See United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 1985). The evidence as a whole supports the district court’s detention decision. See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The § 3142(g) factors all at least partially weigh in favor of pretrial detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Ledoux has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in deciding that he presents a danger and that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of others and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1), (g); Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586; United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED. 2