Opinion ID: 196793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Revocation Decision

Text: [O]n appeal [from a decision revoking supervised release], [this court] consider[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621, 622 (1st Cir. 1993). Viewed in this light, and recognizing the district court's broad legal power to determine witness credibility, id., the record contains sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Omisore argues that [n]othing in the record establishes that Mr. Omisore possessed or actually used the stolen credit card. The record contains the following evidence that Omisore was the one who passed the stolen card. Ruth Corliss, the cashier, identified Omisore in court as the man who gave her the card. Although she subsequently indicated some slight uncertainty, she never confirmed the defense attorney's suggestion that another man was with Omisore and gave her the card. Reham Pasha Ahmad, a store detective, testified that Omisore identified himself as the owner of the card and gave a social security number and birthdate in an attempt to prove ownership. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Omisore attempted to use a stolen credit card, in violation of the conditions -5- of his supervised release. There was no abuse of discretion. The district court judgment revoking Omisore's supervised release is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. -6-