US v. Christopher Smith, No. 13-4318 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4318 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER DAMEON SMITH, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 supervised release for abuse of discretion. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. revocation of United States v. 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. ยง 3583(e)(3) (2006); Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). United States v. This standard is met when the court believe[s] that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. F.3d 621, omitted). 631 (4th Cir. We review for United States v. Manigan, 592 2010) clear (internal error quotation factual marks determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred. United States 2003). v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 2 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 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 representation. this and legal for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
