United States v. Wilson ( 2021 )

Case: 20-61079 Document: 00515976131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 12, 2021
No. 20-61079 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Adrian Douglas Wilson,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 20-61081
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Adrian Wilson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 20-61079 Document: 00515976131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2021
No. 20-61079
c/w No. 20-61081
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:07-CR-23-1
USDC No. 3:06-CR-119-1
Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Adrian Douglas Wilson pleaded guilty in 2007 to: causing a financial
institution to fail to meet reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C.
§ 5324(a)(1); and structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements,
in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). In a separate proceeding in 2008,
Wilson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, five
kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
Regarding both convictions, he was sentenced to a total of 300-months’
imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Following his release to
supervision, Wilson was charged with: domestic violence; malicious
mischief; and sexual battery. At a combined revocation hearing, the district
court revoked Wilson’s supervised release and sentenced him to, inter alia,
37-months’ imprisonment. In these consolidated appeals, Wilson challenges
the court’s revoking his supervised release.
Revocation of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
E.g., United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). “A district
court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that a condition of release has been violated.”
Id. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, as in this instance,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-61079 Document: 00515976131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2021
No. 20-61079
c/w No. 20-61081
we view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light
most favorable to the Government. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d
788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). We also afford great deference to a district court’s
credibility determinations, see United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601, 609
(5th Cir. 2010), and will not disturb them unless they are “incredible as a
matter of law” because the witness testified to facts he “physically could not
have observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of
nature”. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 791 (citation omitted).
Wilson maintains the Government’s evidence was insufficient to
prove the three violations. At the revocation hearing, the same victim
(Wilson’s adult daughter) testified regarding all three charges—domestic
violence, malicious mischief, and sexual battery—and the court found the
victim credible. In response, Wilson references the municipal court’s
dismissal of the domestic violence and malicious mischief charges, offers
conflicting witness testimony denying his ability to commit the violations,
and claims inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The focus of Wilson’s
appeal is that the district court’s credibility determination was erroneous.
Wilson has not shown the victim’s statements were “incredible as a
matter of law”. We therefore defer to the court’s finding the victim credible.
Accordingly, the incriminating evidence includes her credible first-hand
account of the violations, along with other corroborating and circumstantial
evidence. Viewed in the requisite light most favorable to the Government, a
reasonable trier of fact could have found by a preponderance of the evidence
that Wilson committed the violations. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in revoking Wilson’s supervised release. See id. at 791–92;
McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219.
AFFIRMED.
3