Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin J. JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-17
Citations: 154 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 05-4423
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin J. JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin J. JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4423.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 4, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2005.
C. Jennifer Coble, Coble & Snow, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Keith M. Cave, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin J. Jones appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release on the basis that he committed attempted murder and was a felon in possession of a firearm during his term of supervised release. This court reviews a district court's revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A violation of a condition of supervised release must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). A state conviction for the underlying conduct is not required, and the district court's finding of witness credibility in the revocation hearing is not reviewable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, comment, (n.1) (2002); United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment revoking Jones's supervised release. 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