United States v. Brandon Solomon ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4845
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON SOLOMON, a/k/a Fresh,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cr-00277-1)
Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: June 25, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, C. Haley Bunn,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Solomon appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to a
term of 18 months’ imprisonment. Solomon argues that the
district court clearly erred when it found that two witnesses
credibly identified him as the perpetrator of the armed robbery
that precipitated the revocation. Finding no error, we affirm
the district court’s judgment.
To revoke supervised release, the district court need only
find a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of
the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). “We review a
district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s
supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual
findings underlying a revocation for clear error.” United
States v. Padgett, ___ F.3d ___, , Nos. 14-4625, 14-4627,
2015 WL 3561289, at *1 (4th Cir. June 9, 2015). Credibility
determinations made by the district court at revocation hearings
rarely are reversed on appeal. See United States v. Cates, 613
F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Witness credibility is
quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on
appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, “when
documents or objective evidence contradict the witness’ story;
or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible
on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it[,]
2
the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding
purportedly based on a credibility determination.” United
States v. Prokupek, 632 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).
Having reviewed the transcript and record of Solomon’s
revocation hearing, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err when it found that Solomon participated in the armed
robbery and possessed a firearm during the robbery. Although
the witnesses admitted consuming alcohol before the robbery and
video evidence established that the victims did not correctly
identify the color of the clothing worn by the robbers, these
facts neither rendered the identifications implausible nor
prevented a reasonable trier of fact from relying on the
identifications to find it more likely than not that Solomon
participated in the armed robbery. Cf. Fowler v. Joyner, 753
F.3d 446, 454 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding that existence of
“some questionable feature” in identification testimony does not
preclude trier of fact from giving weight to identification
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3