US v. Brandon Solomon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00277-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999609277].. [14-4845]
Appeal: 14-4845
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4845
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
district
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).
court’s
ultimate
decision
to
revoke
“We review a
a
defendant’s
supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual
findings
underlying
a
revocation
States v. Padgett, ___ F.3d ___,
for
clear
error.”
United
, 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.
F.3d
856,
858
(8th
Cir.
See United States v. Cates, 613
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
Appeal: 14-4845
Doc: 30
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
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
prevented
a
rendered
reasonable
the
identifications
trier
of
fact
implausible
from
nor
relying
the
on
identifications to find it more likely than not that Solomon
participated in the armed robbery.
F.3d
446,
454
(4th
Cir.
2014)
Cf. Fowler v. Joyner, 753
(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.
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
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?