Case ID: f-appx_503/html/0509-01.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. Mark Steven Elk SHOULDER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30168.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
    Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Stevens Elk Shoulder appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Elk Shoulder contends that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his supervised release for violating the condition of supervised release prohibiting him from being in the company of a child under the age of 18. Contrary to Elk Shoulder’s contention, the record supports the conclusion that his contact with the child was not incidental or unknowing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Elk Shoulder violated a condition of his supervised release. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir .2008).

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