Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Wayne LUNSFORD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4881.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2006.
    Decided: July 21, 2006.
    Charles O. Peed, Jr., Charles Peed and Associates, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

John Wayne Lunsford appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release. This court reviews a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A violation of a condition of supervised release must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). Here, the district court conducted a hearing, and the Government’s witnesses testified that Lunsford possessed and discharged a firearm. The court found, after assessing the witnesses’ credibility and by a preponderance of the evidence, that Lunsford violated the terms of supervised release, and ordered revocation on that basis. The district court’s finding of witness credibility in the revocation hearing is not renewable. See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment revoking Lunsford’s supervised release. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Lunsford does not challenge the twenty-four month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation.