United States v. Ghazi

Case: 26-20202 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-20202 August 25, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Nour Ghazi, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-389-2 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * A grand jury charged Nour Ghazi with conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release pending trial.

Ghazi contends that the district court’s decision is unsupported by the record and that the court should have discredited the testimony of the Case: 26-20202 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2026

No. 26-20202

Government’s witness. However, Ghazi has not shown that crediting that testimony was clearly erroneous, see United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1990), and he otherwise correctly concedes that hearsay testimony may be considered at a detention hearing, see United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 249-50 (5th Cir. 1985). Based on our review, we hold that the evidence as a whole supports the district court’s decision. See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992).

To the extent Ghazi argues that the district court did not consider his proposed alternatives or explain its decision, the record belies his contention.

The court here heard Ghazi’s mitigating arguments and orally explained its ruling at the conclusion of the detention hearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 9(a)(1). Finally, Ghazi’s contentions about the immigration detainer miss the mark, as the court did not mention the detainer when denying pretrial release.

While the court did consider Ghazi’s alienage, we reject the argument that doing so constitutes an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Esquivel- Bataz, 155 F.4th 491, 493-94 (5th Cir. 2025).

AFFIRMED.