
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samantha Nicole Houston GOODALE, also known as Samantha Nichole Houston Goodale, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-50420 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/20/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ben Castleman Florey, Law Offices of Ben Florey, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Samantha Goodale has been charged with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. She appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to revoke the magistrate judge’s order of detention pending her trial. Goodale contends that the district court erred in failing to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s detention order and in concluding that she is a flight risk and a danger to the community.

The record establishes that the district court did in fact review the magistrate judge’s detention order de novo. See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992). And there is evidentiary support for the district court’s de novo determination that no conditions exist that would reasonably assure Goodale’s appearance at trial in the form of her history of crime and drug abuse, her tenuous community connections, the strength of the evidence against her, and her potential prison sentence of ten years to life. See id. at 586; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(e)-(g), 3145(b). Even if a trial judge could have reasonably come to the opposite conclusion when viewing the question as an original matter, the abuse-of-discretion'standard of appellate review requires us to defer to the district court’s also reasonable denial of Goodale’s request for release pending trial. See United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     