
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40910
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 19, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rogelio Garza appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to serve twenty-four months in prison. According to Garza, the district court erred by concluding that he had committed a new offense and by using this finding both to cancel his release and as a basis for his sentence. Under Garza’s view, the evidence adduced at the revocation hearing did not establish his commission of a new, marijuana-related offense. The abuse of discretion standard applies to our review of the district court’s decision to rescind Garza’s release. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir.1995).

We disagree with Garza’s arguments. Our review of the record shows no error in connection with the district court’s conclusion that Garza committed the new offense alleged in the Petition For Warrant or Summons because the evidence adduced at the revocation hearing sufficed to show that it was more likely than not that Garza committed the disputed offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 117-18 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Barksdale-Contreras, 972 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir.1992). Because the district court’s conclusion concerning Garza’s commission of the new offense was not erroneous, its use of this conclusion to revoke his release and sentence him likewise was not erroneous.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     