Meera Sachdeva appeals the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. The district court determined that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence at trial.

A judicial officer may order a defendant detained pending trial if the officer finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), (f); see United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings in that court, a deferential standard of review that equates to an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992).

The district court’s determination that the Government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence at trial is supported by the record. See § 3142; United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the pretrial detention order is AFFIRMED.