UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 97-4169

TIMOTHY DWAYNE HARDWICK, a/k/a

Timmy Hardwick, a/k/a Timothy

Dewayne Hardwick,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-13)

Submitted: October 28, 1997

Decided: November 13, 1997

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,

South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,

Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Dwayne Hardwick appeals from the district court's order

revoking his supervised release. Because we find the evidence sufficient to support the revocation, we affirm.

Hardwick surrendered himself to the United States Probation

Office on a warrant charging him with violations of his supervised

release. During his revocation hearing before the district court, Hardwick admitted certain violations but denied committing two counts of

assault with a deadly weapon and one count of malicious injury to

property, both Grade A violations under the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1 (1995); State v. Pilgrim, 465

S.E.2d 108, 110 (S.C. 1995), aff'd as modified , 482 S.E. 2d 562 (S.C.

1997). The district court reviewed the transcripts of the detention

hearing. The transcripts contained the eye-witness testimony of Sonny

and Hazel Horn that Hardwick committed the Grade A violations and

also of Melba McPhatter, the alleged victim and Hardwick's "on and

off" girlfriend, that she started the fight and that Hardwick did not "do

anything." Because the district court found that Hardwick had committed the Grade A violations under the Guidelines and that he had

also committed numerous Grade C violations, the court revoked

Hardwick's supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four

months imprisonment.

Hardwick claims that the district court abused its discretion in finding that he had committed the Grade A violations. Specifically, Hardwick contends that the district court abused its discretion by not

crediting the testimony that McPhatter gave on his behalf. This court

will not, however, review the court's determination of a witness's

credibility. See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.

1989).

 2
To the extent that Hardwick is challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence to support his revocation, we find that the evidence presented in this case constituted a sufficient basis upon which the district

court could be reasonably satisfied that Hardwick violated the conditions of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West

Supp. 1997) (providing that violation of supervised release need only

be proven by preponderance of evidence). Mr. Horn testified that he

and his wife observed Hardwick strike McPhatter and that McPhatter

asked them to help her because Hardwick was going to kill her. Mr.

Horn further testified that he saw Hardwick chase and hit McPhatter

with a knife in his hand and that he observed that Hardwick had blood

on his hands. Mr. Horn further stated that Hardwick then threatened

his wife and him.

We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that Hardwick committed two counts of assault

with a deadly weapon and one count of malicious injury to property,

and thus that Hardwick violated the terms of his supervised release.

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); USSG§ 7B1.1. Thus, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hardwick's term

of supervised release. See United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831

(4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm.

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

 3