United States of America v. Armando Solis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARMANDO SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10005
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00377-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Armando Solis appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
revocation of supervised release following a contested evidentiary hearing. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Solis contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10005
supervised release because there was insufficient evidence to establish the
violations. In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
a supervised release revocation, “we ask whether, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United
States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was
sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Solis violated the terms of his
supervised release by committing the new crimes of conspiracy to possess
methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawful use of a communication
device and by associating with a person engaged in criminal activity. See id.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Solis’s
supervised release. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --