UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER DAMEON SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

District Judge. (6:02-cr-01051-HMH-15)

Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Christopher Dameon Smith appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 

thirty-seven months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief 

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

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning 

whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking 

Smith’s supervised release. Smith was informed of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We 

affirm.

We review the district court’s revocation of 

supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). To revoke 

supervised release, a district court need only find a violation 

of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the 

evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006); United States v. 

Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). This standard is met 

when the court “believe[s] 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 determinations 

underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred. United 

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

Moreover, 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). 

With these standards in mind, we have carefully 

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not 

clearly err by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Smith engaged in new criminal conduct. Not only was the 

victim’s testimony sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of 

the other witnesses, but also the court had ample reason to find 

Smith’s version of events incredible. Accordingly, we affirm 

the revocation of Smith’s supervised release. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes 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 thereof 

was served on Smith. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED