Court Opinion

ID: 9882015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:33.3469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:25.168637
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4221      Doc: 48         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4221

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL ANTONIO DAVID, II,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:17-cr-00078-MFU-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, Benjamin
        Schiffelbein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
        DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States
        Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, S. Cagle Juhan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4221      Doc: 48          Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               The district court sentenced Michael Antonio David, II, to 18 months’ imprisonment

        after finding that he violated a condition of his supervised release by possessing a firearm.

        In his opening brief, David argues that the district court clearly erred in concluding that he

        was the individual depicted on surveillance videos removing an item from his waistband

        and that the item was a firearm. In his reply brief, David concedes that the item was a

        firearm but maintains that he was not the individual holding the firearm. We affirm.

               To revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release, the district court need only find

        that the defendant violated a supervised release condition by a preponderance of the

        evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). “This standard requires only that the existence of a fact

        be more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 374

        (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               “We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of

        discretion. But we review the factual findings underlying a revocation for clear error.

        Under the clear error standard, we will only reverse if left with the definite and firm

        conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Doctor, 958 F.3d 226, 234

        (4th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, “factual

        findings are based on the credibility of witnesses, we give great deference to the district

        court’s determinations,” and “[w]e typically only disturb credibility determinations when

        objective evidence contradicts the witness’ story or the story is so internally inconsistent

        or implausible that a reasonable finder of fact would not credit it.” Id.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4221      Doc: 48         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               David argues that we should not defer to the district court’s findings because no

        reasonable factfinder could positively identify the individual holding the firearm. After

        reviewing the surveillance videos, we find no reason to disturb the district court’s decision

        to credit the testimony of the officer who positively identified David as the individual

        holding the firearm. 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

                                                     3