
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William A. TRUDEAU, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-1353-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 11, 2012.
    Rahul Kale (Sandra S. Glover, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for David Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    Ross H. Garber, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Hartford, Connecticut (James K. Filan, Filan LLC, Westport, CT, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, Joseph m. McLaughlin, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant William A. Trudeau, Jr., appeals from the district court’s oral ruling of March 22, 2012, denying Trudeau’s Motion to Review Revocation of Defendant’s Bond. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“[Ujnless we believe that the findings of the district judge were clearly erroneous or that [s]he committed an error of law,” we will affirm the revocation of bail. United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 778 (2d Cir. 1986)).

The district court found probable cause to believe that Trudeau had committed four crimes while on release. Furthermore, the district court found that Trudeau had failed to rebut the presumption that “no condition or combination of conditions of release” would assure that he would not “pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). Neither of these findings was clearly erroneous.

Trudeau argues principally that the four crimes were only minor economic crimes that did not warrant revocation of bail. Even assuming that they were minor economic crimes, the district court acted within its discretion when it found that a person who apparently had committed four additional crimes while on bail posed a danger to the community.

Trudeau also argues that the length of his pre-trial detention is excessive. Much of the delay, however, is attributable to Trudeau himself. Indeed, Trudeau failed to find new counsel in a timely manner (after declining the trial court’s offer to appoint one), and he also declined the government’s offer to advance the trial date. The record reflects no intentional or unwarranted delay by the prosecution. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court’s decision without prejudice to Trudeau filing a motion in this Court to recall the mandate and reinstate his appeal if there are further substantial delays not attributable to him. See United States v. Salameh, 84 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that “a court of appeals always has authority to restore appellate jurisdiction over a case that has been remanded to a district court” through grant of a motion to recall mandate).

We have considered Trudeau’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  