USA V. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, No. 17-30107 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-30107 D.C. No. 6:15-cr-00301-AA v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER ALAN SMITH, a.k.a. Christopher Smith, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Christopher Alan Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Following a contested hearing, the district court concluded that Smith had * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violated a condition of his supervised release that prevented him from “being present within 100 feet of places where minor children under the age of 18 congregate, such as playgrounds and schools, unless approved by the probation officer.” Smith argues that the eyewitness testimony relied upon by the court was unreliable and, thus, insufficient to support revocation of his supervised release. To determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support 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) (internal quotations omitted). The record reflects that the district court found the witness’s testimony that she saw Smith in the shallow end of a swimming pool surrounded by children “highly credible,” notwithstanding her failure to observe his tattoos during that event. The court offered several reasons to support this determination, which were supported by the record. In view of the credible eyewitness testimony, and the testimony of Smith’s probation officer that he did not give permission for Smith to be at the pool, a preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s revocation of Smith’s supervised release. AFFIRMED. 2 17-30107
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
