Opinion ID: 63406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commission of Violations (3) and (6)

Text: Ybarra contends that the district court erred in holding that he committed violation (3), the sexual assault of Saldana in November 2006, and violation (6), the physical assault of Saldana in January 2007. He argues that the district court’s conclusion that he committed these violations was based on erroneous evidence, viz., Saldana’s testimony, which, according to Ybarra, was incredible as a matter of law. Even if, arguendo, we were to agree with Ybarra that his sentence following revocation of supervised release was driven by the two alleged violations that he contested, not the four violations that he did not contest, Ybarra’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed violations (3) and (6) is unconvincing. To support his argument that Saldana’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law, Ybarra points to numerous inconsistencies in her testimony and conflicts between her testimony and the testimony of other witnesses at the revocation hearing. Saldana’s testimony may have been riddled with inconsistencies, but because she was physically present at the November 2006 sexual assault and the January 2007 physical assault, and the facts to which she testified are entirely plausible “under the laws of nature,” her testimony was not incredible as a matter of law.6 The 5 McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219 n.3 (“Where there is an adequate basis for the district court’s discretionary action of revoking probation, the reviewing court need not decide a claim of error as to other grounds that had been advanced as a cause of revocation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1993) (“To be considered incredible as a matter of law, a witness’ testimony must assert . . . facts that the witness physically could 4 No. 07-40294 district court’s finding that Ybarra committed the charged sexual and physical assaults was based on its assessment of Saldana’s credibility. Absent a showing that Saldana’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law, we defer to the district court’s credibility determination.7 The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Ybarra committed violations (3) and (6). Thus, even if the court was strongly influenced by these two violations in revoking supervised release or in determining Ybarra’s sentence, there was no error.