Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0596-01.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. Agustin VERA-FONSECA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10233.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 2, 2010.
    Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Philip Edward Hantel, Esquire, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agustín Vera-Fonseca appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vera-Fonseca contends the district court erred by determining that he violated the terms of his supervised release by illegally reentering the United States. Specifically, he contends that the evidence introduced by the government to show that he was the same individual who was subject to the supervised release condition and had illegally reentered was unreliable and otherwise failed to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard.

The record reflects that the district court did not err by relying on a sworn statement of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement officer as to the circumstances of Vera-Fonseca’s arrest and the sworn testimony of Vera-Fonse-ca’s probation officer. See United States v. Walker, 117 F.3d 417, 420-21 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, Vera-Fonseca’s contention that his identity was in dispute is undermined by the fact that he previously appeared before and was sentenced by the same district court judge. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 254 (8th Cir.2008).

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