NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30107
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 6:15-cr-00301-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER ALAN SMITH, a.k.a.
Christopher Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Alan Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking
his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Following a contested hearing, the district court concluded that Smith had
*
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).
violated a condition of his supervised release that prevented him from “being
present within 100 feet of places where minor children under the age of 18
congregate, such as playgrounds and schools, unless approved by the probation
officer.” Smith argues that the eyewitness testimony relied upon by the court was
unreliable and, thus, insufficient to support revocation of his supervised release.
To determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support 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 quotations omitted).
The record reflects that the district court found the witness’s testimony that she
saw Smith in the shallow end of a swimming pool surrounded by children “highly
credible,” notwithstanding her failure to observe his tattoos during that event. The
court offered several reasons to support this determination, which were supported
by the record. In view of the credible eyewitness testimony, and the testimony of
Smith’s probation officer that he did not give permission for Smith to be at the
pool, a preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s revocation of Smith’s
supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-30107