United States v. David Xinidakis

MEMORANDUM

David Xinidakis appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised release, claiming there was insufficient evidence for the court to find he had committed the crime of stalking in violation of CaLPenal Code § 646.9(a) and (b). Because a preponderance of evidence shows Xinidakis intended to place his victim in reasonable fear for her safety, we affirm.

I

“We review the district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). “A district court may revoke a term of supervised release only if it ‘finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.’ ” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3)). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

II

To establish the offense of stalking under California law, the government had to prove Xinidakis (1) followed or harassed another person, (2) made a credible threat, and (3) intended to place the victim in reasonable fear for her safety. People v. Uecker, 172 Cal.App.4th 583, 594 , 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 355 (2009). The element of intent “can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.”…