Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 921 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1990)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Merrill BEEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-10011.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 13, 1990.* Decided Dec. 20, 1990.

Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and WALLACE and NELSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

Beeman appeals from the district court's revocation of his probation. The district court had jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

"We will overturn a probation revocation only if the district court abused its discretion." United States v. Duff, 831 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir. 1987). "The district court must resolve two issues at a revocation hearing: 1) whether a violation of a probation occurred; and 2) whether probation should be revoked as a result." United States v. Tham, 884 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir. 1989) (Tham). In determining whether a violation occurred, " [t]he standard of proof required is that evidence and facts be such as reasonably to satisfy the judge that the probationer's conduct has not been as required by the conditions of probation." United States v. Guadarrama, 742 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir. 1983) (Guadarrama). Once the court finds a violation, the judge has broad discretion, and may revoke probation for violation of any of the conditions. Tham, 884 F.2d at 1262; see also Hidgon v. United States, 627 F.2d 893, 900 (9th Cir. 1980) (judge may revoke probation for violation of reporting requirements).

Beeman argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the judge's finding that he had violated conditions of probation. However, five witnesses testified at the revocation hearing that Beeman had committed several crimes while on probation, including assault, driving while intoxicated, and resisting arrest. Beeman points to no evidence that contradicts this testimony. He only argues that the evidence the judge considered was unreliable hearsay. However, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in probation revocation proceedings. Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d) (3). Moreover, we find no support for the contention that the testimony was unreliable.

We believe that the detailed testimony of four police officers and a probation officer is sufficient evidence to "satisfy the judge that the probationer's conduct has not been as required by the conditions of probation." Guadarrama, 742 F.2d at 489.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4