IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40988

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL ARCANGEL PELLOT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-440-1

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Rafael Arcangel Pellot appeals the district court’s revocation of his

supervised release. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that

he committed indecency with a child by sexual contact in violation of TEXAS

PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1). He further argues that the district court erred

by failing to give reasons for its revocation of his supervised release.

We review the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 14, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-40988 Document: 00511232570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2010
No. 09-40988

A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if the court finds by

a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has failed to comply with the

conditions of supervised release. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219

(5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in this case. In considering

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence and

all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in a light most

favorable to the Government. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792

(5th Cir. 1994). Because the testimony of the victim and Pellot conflicted with

the testimony of the other witnesses, the district court made credibility

determinations in reaching its decision. This court affords great deference to a

district court’s credibility findings. Id. at 791. The district court did not abuse

its discretion in finding that Pellot had committed the indecency offense.

Pellot’s argument raised for the first time on appeal that the district court

failed to give reasons for its revocation of his supervised release is reviewed for

plain error. See United States v. Myers, 198 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 1999); see

1

also United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826, 828 (5th Cir. 2006). To show plain

error, Pellot must establish a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial

rights. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Pellot,

however, does not attempt to show that any error by the district court affected

his substantial rights and has not satisfied the standard of plain error review.

Id.

At the hearing on the motion to revoke the district court clearly and correctly noted

1

that the motion alleged “a law violation, indecency with a child by sexual conduct, in violation

of Texas Penal Code 21.11, on or about March 14, 2009, in Cameron County, Texas,” and

ascertained that pellot understood the allegation. There was no other violation alleged. At

the conclusion of the hearing the court stated to Pellot: “I do find that you did violate the terms

and conditions of your supervision, as alleged in the allegation,” and revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to 30 months’ confinement followed by 30 months’ supervised

release. The written judgment of the same date recites that Pellot was found guilty of “Law

Violation – Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact 03-14-09.” 

2

Case: 09-40988 Document: 00511232570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2010
No. 09-40988

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-40988 Document: 00511232570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2010