This concerns an appeal from an order revoking probation.

In an information filed in Los Angeles on September 28, 1961, Ralph Vanella with two eodefendants was charged with having in his possession on August 5, 1961, marijuana. One of the codefendants was alleged to have been convicted previously of robbery in Los Angeles County in 1952. Vanella was found guilty as charged in the information and although the evidence disclosed that Vanella had a suitcase full of marijuana (22 pounds) and obviously was a seller of considerable consequence, on May 23, 1962, the sentence to the state prison was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years, a part of the terms being that he spend the first year in the county jail, that he not use or possess any narcotics or narcotics paraphernalia and stay away from places where addicts congregate, that he not associate with known narcotics users or sellers, and that he obey all laws, orders, rules and regulations. The court at the time of sentence said: " But, the man who is out to sell it and make big money is the man that I think society must be protected against, and that is Mr. Vanella.” On September 27, 1962, the order was modified and defendant was released from jail after having served four months of the term imposed. Pursuant to the rules of court we have called for and have made available the original record of this case.

The probation officer’s report filed May 21, 1962, indicates that Vanella was then 26 years of age, married and as a self-employed person was receiving $550 per month. Further, that he had no military service because of his arrest record. That record in part shows that in 1953 he was received by the California Youth Authority for a violation of section 11530 Health and Safety Code (narcotics) and for burglary. He also was arrested and charged with other offenses at later dates but such causes either were dismissed or defendant was found not guilty.

On December 11, 1963, there was filed by the probation officer a report wherein it was recommended that the proba tion order previously made be revoked. That report sets forth among other things:

‘ ‘ Reason fob Hearing :

‘ ‘ Present Situation :

Probation was revoked on December 11, 1963. Appellant sought to have the proceedings dismissed in May 1964 upon the basis that since he had been confined at the federal prison he had taken full advantage of the institution’s narcotic program, that he was now in effect reformed and any further incarceration might destroy his good intentions. The petition to dismiss was denied July 1,1964.

On November 15, 1965, a Supplemental Report was filed by the probation officer. That report set forth in part the following:

‘ ‘ Summary of Federal Case :

“Portions of the majority opinion, written by Judge Orr, are quoted :

‘ ‘ The opinion goes on to relate events of the indictment OF THE DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT IN THE FEDERAL CASE AND DETAILS OF THEIR ARREST. THE OPINION CONTINUES, READING AS FOLLOWS:

When questioned about the marijuana found in his house on which the federal ease was based, defendant’s only statement was that there were other people in the house at the time of his arrest.

The case of Vanella in the federal court ran an unusual course. A panel of the court on April 20, 1965, reversed the judgment upon a search and seizure question as heretofore indicated in the probation officer’s report of November 1965. In a petition for rehearing the United States Attorney pointed out that Vanella had been charged with a conspiracy with reference to narcotics, the overt acts starting in January 1962 and continuing to February 14, 1963. The opinion contained a statement to the contrary. A rehearing was granted and the judgments of conviction on counts 2 and 3 were affirmed as to Vanella on September 2, 1966. (See Vanella v. United States, 371 F.2d 50 .)

Probation was revoked and defendant was on January 26, 1966, sentenced to the state prison “which sentence is ordered to run concurrently with Federal sentence.” The judgment of January 1966 also states that defendant shall be delivered “into the custody of the Director of Corrections at the California State Prison at Chino when available. ’ ’

Defendant appeals from the “judgment of probation violation.”

Appellant now asserts that the court abused its discretion in revoking the probation.

It is appellant’s burden to demonstrate affirmatively an abuse of discretion (People v. Silva, 241 Cal.App.2d 80, 84 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 243 ]) and this he has not done. (See In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41, 44 [ 244 P.2d 403 ]; People v. Walker, 215 Cal.App.2d 609, 612 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 440 ]; Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199 .)

Appellant incorrectly assumes that it was necessary for the People to establish that there was an affirmed conviction at the time of revocation. Many times circumstances not warranting a conviction may fully justify a court in revoking probation granted on a prior offense. (See People v. Bawden, 208 Cal.App.2d 589, 598 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 368 ].)

The real test is as stated in section 1203.2 Penal Code; that is, whether the court has reason to believe “that the person so placed upon probation is violating any of the conditions of his probation, or engaging in criminal practices. ...”

Here the trial judge was to decide whether appellant had engaged in narcotics activities or associated with known narcotic users or sellers. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in such a proceeding. A clear and satisfactory showing is sufficient. (See People v. Hamlin, 152 Cal.App.2d 112, 115 [312 P.2d 306]; People v. Sweeden, 116 Cal.App.2d 891, 895 [ 254 P.2d 899 ]; People v. London, 28 Cal.App.2d 395, 396 [ 82 P.2d 619 ].)

There is not the slightest question here that appellant was engaged in narcotics activity after he was placed on probation and properly his probation was revoked.

The order is affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.