United States v. Adrian Alberto Rojo-Mendoza

83 F.3d 430 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Alberto ROJO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10290. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 10, 1996. * Decided April 12, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Adrian Alberto Rojo-Mendoza appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release from a 1993 conviction for illegally reentering the United States after his deportation. Rojo-Mendoza contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that he violated the terms of his supervised release and his confrontation rights were violated at the revocation hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. 3 We review the factual findings underlying the revocation of supervised release for clear error. See United States v. Baclaan, 948 F.2d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). The government is required…