Court Opinion

ID: 1001135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:51:10.822148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:13.529986
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4760

ROBERT CARBAJAL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-233)

Submitted: March 10, 2000

Decided: March 24, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Owaiian M. Jones, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Nicholas S. Altimari, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Carbajal appeals the district court's order revoking his
supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months impris-
onment. Carbajal contends that there was insufficient evidence to find
that he participated in a bank robbery, a Grade A violation of super-
vised release under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1(a)(1)
(1994). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The district court had only to find by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Carbajal had violated a condition of his supervised release.
See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 1999). We review the
court's decision for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cop-
ley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). "The burden of showing some-
thing by a `preponderance of the evidence' . . . simply requires the
trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable
than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who
has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact's existence." Con-
crete Pipe & Prods., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust,
508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358, 371-
372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (alteration in original) (internal
quotation marks omitted)).

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by find-
ing by a preponderance of the evidence that Carbajal participated in
a bank robbery. The fact that Carbajal was acquitted at trial of the
bank robbery charges is not relevant because of the different stan-
dards of proof. See, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 942 F.2d 243, 246
(4th Cir. 1991) (noting that preponderance of evidence standard is
less demanding than proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2