US v. Brandon Solomon
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00277-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [14-4845]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
June 17, 2015
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, C. Haley Bunn,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to a
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
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).
“We review a
supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual
States v. Padgett, ___ F.3d ___,
, Nos. 14-4625, 14-4627,
2015 WL 3561289, at *1 (4th Cir. June 9, 2015).
determinations made by the district court at revocation hearings
rarely are reversed on appeal.
See United States v. Cates, 613
quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on
appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
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[,]
Pg: 3 of 3
the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding
States v. Prokupek, 632 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).
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.
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
identifications to find it more likely than not that Solomon
participated in the armed robbery.
Cf. Fowler v. Joyner, 753
“some questionable feature” in identification testimony does not
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?