UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN WAYNE LUNSFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-01-379)
Submitted: June 26, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles O. Peed, Jr., CHARLES PEED AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Wayne Lunsford appeals the district court's order
revoking his 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 (2000). Here,
the district court conducted a hearing, and the Government’s
witnesses testified that Lunsford possessed and discharged a
firearm. The court found, after assessing the witnesses’
credibility and by a preponderance of the evidence, that Lunsford
violated the terms of supervised release, and ordered revocation on
that basis. The district court's finding of witness credibility in
the revocation hearing is not reviewable. See United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment
revoking Lunsford's supervised release. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
Lunsford does not challenge the twenty-four month term of
imprisonment imposed upon revocation.
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -