United States v. Bynum ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30593
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JASON BYNUM, also known as
Jason James Bynum,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-50066-1
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jason Bynum appeals the revocation of his supervised
release. He complains that the “Petition on Probation and
Supervised Release” failed to “reference violation of any
condition of his supervised release.” He also contends that the
Government failed to prove its case, “[i]f limited to the
evidence at the initial hearing, as it should be[.]”
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30593
-2-
revoking supervised release. See United States v. McCormick, 54
F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The
Petition on Probation and Supervised Release charged Bynum with
threatening suicide and with “threaten[ing] bodily harm to an
employee of the Creswell Hotel on November 24, 1999.” At the
revocation hearing, the district court provided Bynum’s counsel
with an opportunity to contest the charges, to present evidence
on Bynum’s behalf, and to conduct cross-examination.
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it allowed the Government to introduce additional evidence
over Bynum’s objection. See United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d
117, 125 (5th Cir. 1995)(direct appeal). As the Government
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of
release had been violated, no abuse of discretion has been shown.
See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.