Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Andrew JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10020.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 15, 2013.
    Andrew Duncan, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Frederick Jones appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Jones violated a condition of his supervised release by committing a battery in violation of Nev.Rev. Stat. § 33.018. The testimony from the victim and the probation officer, taken in the light most favorable to the government, established by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones’ conduct constituted a “willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Id. § 200.481(l)(a); see also United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2010). The petition for revocation provided Jones with sufficient notice of the charge against him. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.