United States v. Jillian Ingram , 589 F. App'x 398 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30066
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00167-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JILLIAN JOLENE INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jillian Jolene Ingram appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The parties’ joint motion to
submit the case on the briefs is granted.
Ingram contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking her
supervised release based on the finding that she indirectly contacted N.G., the
victim of the underlying offense. Specifically, she contends that there was no
evidence that she intended to contact N.G. when she left messages for N.G.’s
employer and posted a comment in response to a presentation N.G. posted online.
Ingram’s conduct supports an inference that the indirect contact was intentional,
rather than inadvertent or unknowing. See United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929,
934 (9th Cir. 2004) (intent can be inferred from defendant’s conduct and
surrounding circumstances). Viewed in the light most favorable to the
government, the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that
Ingram violated the terms of her supervised release. See United States v. King, 608
F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Ingram’s supervised release based on her indirect contact
with N.G. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-30066