|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,||No. 02-6053
(D.C. No. 01-MD-319-M)
Jarrett Charles Holmes appeals from the district court's order revoking supervised release. Holmes argues that the evidence that he had violated conditions of his supervised release was insufficient to support revocation. We affirm.
Although Holmes, through counsel, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support revocation of his supervised release, he has failed to include in the record on appeal a copy of the transcript of the hearing at which this evidence was presented. It is well-settled law in this circuit that we will not consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the appellant has included the transcript of the relevant proceedings. E.g., United States v. Vasquez, 985 F.2d 491, 494-95 (10th Cir. 1993) (failure to include trial transcript results in waiver of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence). Because Holmes's sole challenge to the revocation of his sentence has been waived, the district court's order must be affirmed.(1)
Accordingly, the decision below is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
*.After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1. We note that, based upon the summaries offered by the parties of the evidence presented at the revocation hearing, it appears clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to warrant revocation of Holmes's supervised release.