US v. Illes Williams, No. 13-4953 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4953 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ILLES WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00020-IMK-JSK-4) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 4, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Illes Williams appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a twelve-month prison term. Williams sole appellate contention is that the evidence insufficient to support he the conditions was finding that release. violated the district of his court s supervised For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a district court s judgment supervised release for abuse of discretion. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. revoking 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. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); 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, 631 omitted). (4th Appellate determinations occurred. Cir. 2010) courts underlying United States v. Manigan, 592 review (internal the for quotation clear conclusion that error a marks factual violation United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). As prohibited crime. a from condition of committing supervised another release, federal, Williams state, or was local The district court revoked Williams supervised release 2 based on its findings that Williams violated this condition by knowingly providing false information about his prior driver s license suspensions/revocations license applications, supervised release. makes any false both on of two which West he Virginia prepared driver s while on Under West Virginia law, [a]ny person who affidavit, or knowingly swears or affirms falsely to any matter or thing required by the terms of this Chapter [(W. Va. Code § 17B (Motor Vehicle Driver s Licenses)] is guilty of perjury. W. Va. Code Ann. § 17B-4-2 (LexisNexis 2013). Williams does not dispute that his driver s license was suspended or revoked at the time he completed the driver s license applications. Nor does he deny that he stated on his applications that he had suspension. Instead, not he experienced contends that a the revocation evidence or was a not sufficient to establish that he knew his license was revoked or suspended and hence was not sufficient to show that he knowingly made a false statement. Williams defense theory was that, before 2011, he had only applied for, and received, a learner s permit, and therefore, having never held a permanent driver s license, he was unaware when he filled out the applications in 2011 and 2012 that his driver s license had been suspended years earlier. However, Williams had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of 3 driving suspended/revoked prior to completing the two driver s license applications. The district court thus found that Williams claim of ignorance was incredible, and we defer to this credibility determination. F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. United States v. Cates, 613 2010). Taken in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010), we conclude that the Government proffered ample evidence to satisfy its burden of proof that Williams knowingly affirmed falsely that he had no prior suspensions or revocations. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence established that Williams committed perjury and hence violated the conditions of his supervised release. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment revoking Williams term of supervised release and imposing a twelve-month sentence. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
