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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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