Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven Elk SHOULDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 503 F. App'x 509
Docket Number: No. 12-30168
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven Elk SHOULDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 509–509

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.