UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4845

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRANDON SOLOMON, a/k/a Fresh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cr-00277-1)

Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: June 25, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Research & Writing Specialist, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. 

Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, C. Haley Bunn, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Solomon appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to a 

term of 18 months’ imprisonment. Solomon argues that the 

district court clearly erred when it found that two witnesses 

credibly identified him as the perpetrator of the armed robbery

that precipitated the revocation. Finding no error, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment.

To revoke supervised release, the district court need only 

find a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of 

the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). “We review a 

district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s 

supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual 

findings underlying a revocation for clear error.” United 

States v. Padgett, ___ F.3d ___, , Nos. 14-4625, 14-4627, 

2015 WL 3561289, at *1 (4th Cir. June 9, 2015). Credibility 

determinations made by the district court at revocation hearings 

rarely are reversed on appeal. See United States v. Cates, 613 

F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Witness credibility is

quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on 

appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, “when 

documents or objective evidence contradict the witness’ story; 

or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible 

on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it[,] 
3

the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding 

purportedly based on a credibility determination.” United 

States v. Prokupek, 632 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).

Having reviewed the transcript and record of Solomon’s 

revocation hearing, we conclude that the district court did not 

clearly err when it found that Solomon participated in the armed 

robbery and possessed a firearm during the robbery. Although 

the witnesses admitted consuming alcohol before the robbery and 

video evidence established that the victims did not correctly 

identify the color of the clothing worn by the robbers, these 

facts neither rendered the identifications implausible nor 

prevented a reasonable trier of fact from relying on the 

identifications to find it more likely than not that Solomon 

participated in the armed robbery. Cf. Fowler v. Joyner, 753 

F.3d 446, 454 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding that existence of 

“some questionable feature” in identification testimony does not 

preclude trier of fact from giving weight to identification 

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED