Opinion ID: 171043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proof of Prior Conviction

Text: Mr. Servin-Acosta contends that the district court had insufficient evidence to find that he had been convicted of second-degree robbery in California. We are not persuaded. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Hawley, 93 F.3d 682, 686-87 (10th Cir.1996). The sentencing court may find that the defendant has a prior conviction if it is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 464 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.2006). As we have stated, A case summary obtained from a state court and prepared by a clerk  even if not certified by that court  may be sufficiently reliable evidence of conviction for purposes of enhancing a federal sentence where the defendant fails to put forward any persuasive contradictory evidence. United States v. Zuniga-Chavez, 464 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir.2006). Moreover, we have approved the use of a criminal-history report generated by the National Crime Information Center to establish a prior conviction when the defendant has failed to present any evidence that he is not the person who is the subject of the report. See Martinez-Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 1210-12. As proof of Mr. Servin-Acosta's prior robbery conviction, the government offered three sources: the minute order; a Form I-213 report created after Mr. Servin-Acosta's March 4, 2007, arrest; and another Form I-213 from his 1993 deportation proceedings. Mr. Servin-Acosta has not challenged the I-213 forms or the government's explanation of how they corroborate the minute order as proof of his prior conviction. Nor has he presented any evidence that he was not convicted of robbery in California. His argument amounts to little more than reliance on a decision by the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Snellenberger, 493 F.3d 1015, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2007). But Snellenberger does not help him. Although it said that a minute order cannot be used to prove the underlying conduct, it added that such an order can be used to prove the fact of a conviction. See id. at 1017 n. 5. The district court found that the evidence was sufficient: I do think that the minute order is reliable, and I think the government has proven the conviction by a preponderance of the evidence, and I do note that the government came forth with additional documentation that tends to support the reliability of the previous conviction, so I will overrule the defendant's argument on that point. R. Vol. III at 16. The court's finding was not clear error.