United States v. Christopher Smith ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAMEON SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-01051-HMH-15)
Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Dameon Smith appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
thirty-seven months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking
Smith’s supervised release. Smith was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We
affirm.
We review the district court’s revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). To revoke
supervised release, a district court need only find a violation
of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the
evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006); United States v.
Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). This standard is met
when the court “believe[s] that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Manigan, 592
F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We review for clear error factual determinations
underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred. United
States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
2
Moreover, credibility determinations made by the district court
at revocation hearings are rarely reviewable on appeal. United
States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010).
With these standards in mind, we have carefully
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
clearly err by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith engaged in new criminal conduct. Not only was the
victim’s testimony sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of
the other witnesses, but also the court had ample reason to find
Smith’s version of events incredible. Accordingly, we affirm
the revocation of Smith’s supervised release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Smith. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4