* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 30 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MELISSA LYNN BEKEDERMO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 99-5108 (N. District of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. 96-CR-58-H)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , McKAY, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In 1996, Melissa Bekedermo pleaded guilty to one co unt of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of bank fra ud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §-2-

1344, and one count of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The district court sentenced Bekedermo to a six-month term of incarceration, a three-year term of supervised release on the conspi racy and false statement convictions, and a five-year term of supervised rel ease on the bank fraud conviction. In January of 1999, the United States Probation Office filed a Petition on Supervised Release. The Petition alleg ed that Bekedermo had violated a special condition of her supervised release in th at she had committed another crime. In particular, the Petition alleged that Be kedermo had made false statements to the United States Department of Agric ulture (“USDA”) and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in efforts to fraudulently obtain federally subsidized housing. At the conclusion of a hearing on the Petition, the district court revoked Bekedermo’s supervised release, sentenced her to a term of incarceration of eightee n months, reimposed the remaining forty-two month term of her supervised re lease, and reimposed an order of restitution. The case is before the court on counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. In his brief, counsel indicates that Bek edermo insists on raising the following two issues on appeal: (1) whether she was properly supervised by the probation office in the Northern District of Oklaho ma, the district where Bekedermo was convicted and began serving her term of supervised release,-3-

during those periods when she was living in the Eas tern District of Oklahoma; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to showthat Bekedermo had violated her terms of supervised release. According to coun sel, he has undertaken a “thorough and conscientious examination of the reco rd and . . . file in this case” and, based on that review, concluded that neither i ssue is meritorious. Bekedermo was given a copy of her counsel’s Anders brief and an opportunity to respond; no such response was ever filed. After conducting a thorough review of the record inthis case, we agree that Bekedermo’s assertions of error are completely with out merit. As to Bekedermo’s claims regarding the propriety of a pro bation officer from the Northern District of Oklahoma supervising her while she was residing in the Easter District of Oklahoma, this court, like Beked ermo’s counsel, was unable to find any authority, rule, or regulation prohibiting supervision by a neighboring probation office. Furthermore, Bekedermo’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence are clearly frivolous. The United States adduced uncontradicted evidence that Bekedermo had applied for federally s ubsidized housing from both the USDA and HUD. The USDA and HUD application forms submitted with the Petition demonstrated that, as part of the applicat ion for such aid, Bekedermo had stated she lived alone with her three children and was the household’s sole source of income. Furthermore, the United States adduced reports filed by Bekedermo as-4-

part of the supervised release self-reporting requi rements. Those reports indicated that Bekedermo’s husband lived with her d uring the periods covered in the USDA and HUD aid applications, that Bekedermo’s husband was employed during that time period, and that the Bekedermos’ c ombined income during that period was far in excess of the limitations to rece ive assistance. This documentary evidence is more than sufficient to sat isfy the government burden of proving a violation of the terms of supervised rele ase by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, the districtcourt did not abuse its discretion in concluding that “there is o verwhelming evidence that the federal law was violated by Melissa Bekedermo” and, therefore, revoking Bekedermo’s term of supervised release. See United States v. McAffee , 998 F.2d 835, 837 (10th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma revoking Bekedermo’s supervised release is hereby AFFIRMED

. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge