UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

FABIAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:08-cr-01146-HMH-1)

Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: September 21, 2012

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fabian Williams was convicted of violating the terms 

of his supervised release and was sentenced to twenty-one months 

in prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising 

two issues but stating that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Although he was advised of his right to file a pro se 

brief, Williams has not filed such a brief. We affirm. 

I

Williams first contends that there was insufficient 

evidence upon which to find that he violated the terms of his 

release. We review a district court’s decision to revoke 

supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir 1992). To revoke release, 

the district court need only find a violation of a condition of 

release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2011). This burden “simply requires 

the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is 

more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Manigan, 

592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We review for clear error factual findings underlying 

the conclusion that a violation of supervised release occurred. 

United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). 
3

Credibility determinations made by the district court at 

revocation hearings are rarely reviewable. United States v. 

Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2010).

At Williams’ revocation hearing, an officer testified 

that he detected a strong smell of marijuana inside the vehicle 

Williams was driving. Williams attempted to flee the scene, and 

a struggle, during which the officer was injured, ensued. 

Officers recovered from the vehicle a number of empty baggies, 

250 grams of marijuana packaged in baggies, and digital scales. 

Additionally, officers found $482 in cash on Williams’ person. 

The officer testified that the manner in which the marijuana was 

packaged, the presence of scales, and the cash were associated 

with marijuana distribution. 

Based on this testimony, we conclude that the court 

did not clearly err in finding that Williams possessed the 

marijuana with intent to distribute it and assaulted the 

officer, thereby violating the terms of release. Further, in 

light of the statutory requirement that release be revoked when 

the defendant possesses a controlled substance, see 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 3583(g)(1) (West Supp. 2011), revocation of supervised release 

was not an abuse of discretion.
4

II

Williams also contends that his twenty-one-month 

sentence is unreasonable. A sentence imposed following 

revocation of supervised release will be affirmed if it is 

within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly 

unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 

(4th Cir 2006). Williams’ sentence is below the statutory 

maximum of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3). 

Further, the sentence is procedurally reasonable: the district 

court considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors that it was 

permitted to consider. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. 

Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, for the court 

adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence, 

noting especially that Williams attempted to harm the officer. 

See id. at 440.

III

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel 

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the 

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 
5

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served 

on his client. 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