Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd Jeremy RICE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 468 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 11-30249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd Jeremy RICE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd Jeremy RICE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, Mt, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Todd Jeremy Rice appeals from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rice contends that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he violated the terms of his supervised release. Specifically, Rice contends that there was insufficient evidence to show that he violated supervised release by (1) illegally possessing a controlled substance, and (2) failing to report for drug testing. The record reflects that the government proved the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Turner, 312 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Rice's supervised release. See United States v. Daniel, 209 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.