## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 2319

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kitt Carmine Colizziano, also known as James Lee Collinson, II

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________

Submitted: January 9, 2023 Filed: June 6, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________

Before KE LLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM

.

In October 2019, Kitt Carmine Colizziano was sentenced to 24 month s of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to possession
of a firearm as a convicted felon

. His term of supervision began in February 2021. In May 2022, Colizziano was arrested on state law charges of harassment and false-2- imprisonment

. After a hearing, t he district court 1 revoked Colizziano’s term of supervised release and im posed a revocation sentence of 12 month s and 1 day, to be followed by 24 months of supervised release

.

Col izziano appeals, challenging the district court’s finding that he violated the
condition s of his supervised release. 2 “ To support a revocation of supervised release, a district court is required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a violation of a condition of supervised release, in this case
a violation of state law.” United States v. Frosch , 758 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, United States v. Carothers , 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) , and its ultimate decision to revoke a ter m of supervised release for an abuse
of discretion. United States v. Ahlemeier , 391 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 2004)

.

Here, t he district court relied primarily on the testimony of two witnesses

— Co lizziano ’s girlfriend, Monica McIntosh, and her daughter, A dreanna Davis

— to
find that Colizziano had committ ed both first

- degree harassment and false imprisonment

. Davis testified that on May 23, 2022, Colizziano picked her up from an appointment in Marshalltown, Iowa. Shortly after she got in his car , Colizziano became upset and started “yell[ing]” and “cussing” at Davis about a set of keys. She said that he threatened to “shoot [her] right now” and “beat [her] ass.” Davis repeatedly told Coli zziano that she “wanted out of the vehicle,” but he did not respond , even after she opened the passenger

- side door while the car was moving

. Davis saw a “ stop sign coming up, ” and as the car slowed, she decided to “ tak[e] [a] chance to get out of the vehicle .” She stepped out from her seat and fell from the moving car. Colizziano kept driving.

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

2 One condition of Colizziano ’s supervised release provided, “ You must not commit another federal, state or local crime. ”-3- Davis immediately called her mother , McIntosh . When McIntosh did not

answer her phone

, Davis contacted a friend, who drove her to McIntosh’s workplace.
Mc Intosh described a text message she received from Davis telling her that Davis

was on the way to McIntosh’s office. The text said that Davis and Colizziano had gotten into “a big fight,” that Colizziano was “ yelling and threaten ing her,” and that
Davis had “ jump ed out of the car .” McIntosh testified that Davis was “ shaking ” and

“ crying ” when she arrived at her workplace , approximately 15 minutes after the
incident. One of McIntosh’s coworkers saw Davis and called the police. Colizziano
also test ified at the revocation hearing . He denied threatening Davis or hearing her say she wanted to get out of his car

.

Th e district court found the testimony of Davis and McIntosh credible, noting
that Davis “did not embellish the story to make it more fav orable to herself” ; that

, according to McIntosh’s testimony, Davis was visibly emotional after the incident ; and that it was a third part y , not Davis or McIntosh, who “observed what was happening and realized that law enforcement needed to be involved. ” In contrast,
the court found that Colizziano was not credible , as his testimony “ was internally
inconsistent

, ” and he “ changed his story

. . . when confronted with facts that were unhelpful to him. ” Colizziano views the evidence differently, c ontending that the conflicting testimony presented at the hearing fail ed to support the district court’s findings. But the district court was entitled to credit the testimony of Davis and
McIntosh and to give Colizziano ’s version of events little weight

, and we give these credibility determinations great deference. See Frosch , 758 F.3d at 1014 (noting that credibility determinations are “virtually unassailable on appeal ”)

.

Th e district court did not clearly err in find ing that Colizziano violated the conditions of his supervised release . We affirm the judgment

. 3

______________________________

3 We also deny Colizziano’s motion for substitute counsel.