FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10065
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00036-KJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANA CASAUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dana Casaus appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
revocation of his supervised release following a contested evidentiary hearing. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Casaus contends that the district court abused its discretion by finding that
he violated the conditions of his supervised release by possessing and selling
cocaine because there was no physical evidence to support its finding, and the
finding was based solely on Casaus’s confession to his probation officer. 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). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government,
Casaus’s detailed confession to the probation officer that he possessed and sold
cocaine, in conjunction with his positive drug test, was sufficient to support the
district court’s finding. See id. Moreover, contrary to Casaus’s contention, an
uncorroborated confession may sustain a supervised release revocation finding.
See United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 949-51 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10065