Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51300/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51300-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Wade Roberson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51300

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEFFREY WADE ROBERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-73-4

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey Wade Roberson appeals the revocation of his supervised release. 

Roberson argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he violated 

the conditions of his supervised release by failing to support his dependents

and by associating with three felons. 

A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51300 Document: 00513186220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2015
No. 14-51300

2

supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 

114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). We review the district court’s decision to revoke 

supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grandlund, 71 

F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995). 

At the revocation hearing, Roberson’s probation officer testified that 

Roberson failed to pay child support with wages that he earned while working 

for his father. Defense counsel and Roberson conceded that fact. Therefore, 

the district court’s determination that Roberson violated his conditions of 

supervised release by failing to pay child support to his dependents was 

adequately supported by the record and justifies the revocation. See Hinson, 

429 F.3d at 118-19; Grandlund, 71 F.3d at 509. Because there is an adequate 

basis for the district court’s revocation based on Roberson’s failure to support

his dependents, we need not address his argument regarding the sufficiency of 

the evidence as to the allegation regarding his associating with felons. See 

United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51300 Document: 00513186220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2015