United States v. Valdez-Robles ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40606
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL VALDEZ-ROBLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-87-CR-144-1
--------------------
May 30, 2002
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Joel Valdez-Robles challenges his sentence following the
revocation of his probation. He argues that the district court
erred in determining that he had conspired to distribute marijuana
in March 2001 and then basing Valdez-Robles’ sentence on this
offense. Allegations that a probationer has violated the terms of
his probation need only be established by a preponderance of the
evidence. See United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir.
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40606
-2-
1996)(citations omitted). A preponderance of the evidence means
only that it is more likely than not that a fact is true. United
States v. Barksdale-Contreras, 972 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir. 1992).
Valdez-Robles has not shown that the evidence adduced at his
revocation hearing was insufficient to uphold the district court’s
finding that he committed the March 2001 offense. This evidence
established that sensors had gone off in the area where Valdez-
Robles was arrested shortly before his arrest; Border Patrol agents
arrested him within 75 yards of the marijuana; there were similar
footprints leading from the river to the marijuana and from the
marijuana to the area where agents arrested him; and he gave a
false name and falsely claimed Mexican citizenship when he was
arrested by the Border Patrol. These facts make it more likely
than not that Valdez-Robles was part of a conspiracy to distribute
the marijuana. Because Valdez-Robles has not shown that district
court erred in finding that he committed the March 2001 offense, he
likewise has not shown that the district court erred in basing his
sentence on this offense. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2