Opinion ID: 2818495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a supervised release revocation, we ask whether, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.’” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2007)). “‘We review for abuse of discretion the conditions of supervised release set by the district court and challenged on . . . appeal’ when trial counsel objects to a supervised release condition.” United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (ellipsis in original) (quoting United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Whether a supervised release condition illegally exceeds the permissible statutory penalty or violates the Constitution is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009).