United States v. Joseph Richard Stubblefield, 992 F.2d 1223, 10th Cir. (1993)
United States v. Joseph Richard Stubblefield, 992 F.2d 1223, 10th Cir. (1993)
2d 1223
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without
oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
The next day, Bruggemans noticed that a man was following her as she drove to
several locations in Boulder. She ultimately drove to the restaurant where she
was employed, went inside, then pretended to leave. When she did so,
defendant, who had exited his car and was using a public telephone, returned to
his car as if preparing to continue following her. Bruggemans then re-entered
the restaurant and called the police. When the police arrived, defendant denied
any wrongdoing. Bruggemans identified both defendant's vehicle and
confirmed from the picture on his driver's license that he was the person who
had followed her. Bruggemans did not know defendant's name, but recognized
him as the individual who had appeared when police were taking the original
burglary report, and who had inquired about the break-in. Defendant's vehicle
contained Bruggemans' missing appointment book, binoculars, mail addressed
to Post Office boxes (but not to defendant as the addressee), more than sixty
Post Office box keys, burglary tools and a pak radio set with two frequencies
programmed to Bruggemans' telephone. Defendant was then arrested.
To revoke parole, the district court must be reasonably satisfied that a parole
violation has occurred. Reber, 876 F.2d at 83. The government need not prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation was committed. Here, the
After reviewing the entire record, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in deciding defendant violated the conditions of his parole and
imposing a ten-month period of incarceration. The government's evidence of
alleged parole violations was virtually unchallenged by the defendant.
10
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3