United States v. Escontrias

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 18, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
0N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51126
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
EDWARDO LEE ESCONTRIAS,
Defendant-
Appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CR-124-ALL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edwardo Lee Escontrias appeals the revocation of his supervised release following his 2002
guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to
revoke his supervised release because there was no evidence presented to the district court that he
actually committed a crime while on supervised release, only that he had been charged with

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
committing a crime. We review the district court’s revocation of Escontrias’s supervised release for
an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).
Escontrias makes no mention of the fact that when he appeared at the revocation hearing, he
already had pleaded guilty to the 2005 conspiracy-to-distribute-narcotics charge that formed the basis
of the Government’s motion to revoke. His assertion that there was no evidence that he committed
the offense which formed the basis for his revocation thus borders on frivolous.
Escontrias next argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his supervised
release because the court did not have a “legal basis” to issue a warrant based on a violation of the
conditions of his supervised release. He argues that the warrant merely stated that he had been
charged with another crime, not that he had committed a crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3606, a warrant
may issue if there is probable cause to believe that a releasee has violated a condition of his supervised
release. Escontrias’s argument is without merit.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --