UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC ANTONIO MCINNIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:05-cr-00338-TLW-2)

Submitted: March 19, 2012 Decided: April 10, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wilder 

Harte, Second Year Law Student, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S 

OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. 

Nettles, United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Following a hearing, the district court found that 

Cedric McInnis had violated the terms of his supervised release. 

The court revoked release and imposed a thirty-six-month 

sentence. McInnis now appeals. We affirm. 

I

Testimony at the revocation hearing established that 

on January 14, 2011, two armed men invaded the home of Beatrice 

Quick in Hamlet, North Carolina. Quick and her adult son, 

William, had ample time to observe the intruders, who were in 

the house for approximately thirty minutes. During that time, 

the victims were subdued, tied, and held at gunpoint. Mrs. 

Quick was kicked and choked. The home was ransacked: the 

intruders punched a hole in a wall; and one intruder shot into 

the kitchen floor. The intruders fled in a Dodge Charger with a 

safe they stole from the house. 

Mrs. Quick identified McInnis without hesitation when 

she was shown a photographic array that included McInnis’ 

photograph. When William Quick was shown a photographic array 

approximately two weeks later, he also immediately identified 

McInnis as an intruder. The two victims positively identified 

McInnis at the revocation hearing. Additionally, authorities 

who searched McInnis’ residence discovered a handgun and a blue 
3

light. The victims told authorities that the car in which the 

intruders fled had a blue light on the dashboard, making them 

believe at first that the intruders were law enforcement 

officers. 

On the basis of the above evidence, the district court 

found by a preponderance of the evidence that McInnis was one of 

the two home invaders. The court concluded that he had 

committed the release violations as charged,* and the court 

accordingly revoked release. 

II

McInnis contends on appeal that the district court 

erred in finding that he was one of the two intruders. 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) (2006). 

This burden “simply requires the trier of fact to believe that 

 * McInnis was charged with: committing new criminal conduct 

(first degree kidnapping and robbery with a dangerous weapon); 

committing new criminal conduct (second degree kidnapping); and 

leaving the state without permission. On appeal, McInnis 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only with respect to 

the first two charges.
4

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). At a revocation proceeding, 

“the traditional rules of evidence are inapplicable, and the 

full panoply of constitutional protections afforded a criminal 

defendant is not available.” United States v. Armstrong, 187 

F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and 

citation 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). Credibility determinations made by the district 

court at revocation hearings are rarely reviewable on appeal. 

United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010).

In light of the evidence summarized above, and 

especially in the face of the identification by both victims of 

McInnis as one of the intruders, we conclude that the court did 

not clearly err in finding that McInnis was one of the men who 

committed the home invasion. Nor did the court abuse its 

discretion in revoking release.

III

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
5

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED