The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-50146•United States of America v. Robert Anderson
10-50146Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 1, 2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50146
D.C. No. 2:00-cr-01079-ABC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Robert Anderson appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Anderson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the district
court’s determination that he violated a condition of his supervised release
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-50146 2
requiring him to abstain from abusing alcohol. The record reflects that the district
court properly concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Anderson
violated this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Perez,
526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that in order to satisfy the preponderance
standard, there must be credible evidence that the releasee violated the terms of
supervised release).
Anderson’s due process claim is unpersuasive as there is no indication that
the district court retroactively modified the “abuse” condition to prohibit all
alcohol use. See United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2008)
(requiring this court to examine the findings to insure that a defendant’s due
process right to notice of prohibited conduct has been observed to protect him from
unknowing violations).
Anderson’s motion to clarify this court’s previous order granting expedited
briefing is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.