United States v. Cedric McInnis , 474 F. App'x 917 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CEDRIC ANTONIO MCINNIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00338-TLW-2)
Submitted: March 19, 2012 Decided: April 10, 2012
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wilder
Harte, Second Year Law Student, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N.
Nettles, United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing, the district court found that
Cedric McInnis had violated the terms of his supervised release.
The court revoked release and imposed a thirty-six-month
sentence. McInnis now appeals. We affirm.
I
Testimony at the revocation hearing established that
on January 14, 2011, two armed men invaded the home of Beatrice
Quick in Hamlet, North Carolina. Quick and her adult son,
William, had ample time to observe the intruders, who were in
the house for approximately thirty minutes. During that time,
the victims were subdued, tied, and held at gunpoint. Mrs.
Quick was kicked and choked. The home was ransacked: the
intruders punched a hole in a wall; and one intruder shot into
the kitchen floor. The intruders fled in a Dodge Charger with a
safe they stole from the house.
Mrs. Quick identified McInnis without hesitation when
she was shown a photographic array that included McInnis’
photograph. When William Quick was shown a photographic array
approximately two weeks later, he also immediately identified
McInnis as an intruder. The two victims positively identified
McInnis at the revocation hearing. Additionally, authorities
who searched McInnis’ residence discovered a handgun and a blue
2
light. The victims told authorities that the car in which the
intruders fled had a blue light on the dashboard, making them
believe at first that the intruders were law enforcement
officers.
On the basis of the above evidence, the district court
found by a preponderance of the evidence that McInnis was one of
the two home invaders. The court concluded that he had
committed the release violations as charged, * and the court
accordingly revoked release.
II
McInnis contends on appeal that the district court
erred in finding that he was one of the two intruders. We
review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829,
831 (4th Cir 1992). To revoke release, the district court need
only find a violation of a condition of release by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (2006).
This burden “simply requires the trier of fact to believe that
*
McInnis was charged with: committing new criminal conduct
(first degree kidnapping and robbery with a dangerous weapon);
committing new criminal conduct (second degree kidnapping); and
leaving the state without permission. On appeal, McInnis
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only with respect to
the first two charges.
3
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). At a revocation proceeding,
“the traditional rules of evidence are inapplicable, and the
full panoply of constitutional protections afforded a criminal
defendant is not available.” United States v. Armstrong, 187
F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We review for clear error factual findings
underlying the conclusion that a violation of supervised release
occurred. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th
Cir. 2003). 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).
In light of the evidence summarized above, and
especially in the face of the identification by both victims of
McInnis as one of the intruders, we conclude that the court did
not clearly err in finding that McInnis was one of the men who
committed the home invasion. Nor did the court abuse its
discretion in revoking release.
III
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
4
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5