UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD LEE KELLEY, JR., a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a
Richard Arturo Roundtree, a/k/a Richard
Kelley, a/k/a Richard Middleton,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00097-REP)
Submitted: May 4, 2007 Decided: May 29, 2007
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani,
Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, William H. Malloy, III,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A probation officer alleged Richard Kelley violated the
terms of his supervised release1 by leaving the assigned
jurisdiction area without permission and abducting and assaulting
the mother of Kelley’s daughter. The alleged victim and Kelley
both testified at the supervised release revocation hearing, as did
Kelley’s purported sister-in-law,2 who testified Kelley was at her
residence on the date of the incident, and the girlfriend of
Kelley’s brother, who testified the victim indicated she was
“jumped” by “a group of girls.” Although the district court
remarked the victim’s testimony contained inconsistencies when
compared to her previous statements to police, the court found the
victim’s testimony was more credible than the accounts claiming
Kelley was not involved in her assault. Finding by a preponderance
of the evidence that Kelley violated the terms of supervised
release, the court sentenced Kelley to two years’ imprisonment3
1
For his underlying offense, Kelley pled guilty to making
false statements in an application for a passport, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2000), and a federal district court sentenced
Kelley to eighteen months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
release.
2
The witness was not in fact Kelley’s sister-in-law, even
though Kelley and the witness both represented to the probation
officer that she was. Instead, her husband’s father assisted in
raising Kelley, though Kelley was not blood-related to the witness’
husband’s father and Kelley did not have this individual listed as
a relative in his presentence report.
3
On appeal, Kelley does not contend the sentence is plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
- 2 -
with no further supervised release, and Kelley appealed. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Factual
determinations informing the conclusion that a violation occurred
are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d
1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). The 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)(2000).
On appeal, Kelley assails the district court’s
credibility determination and characterizes the victim’s testimony
as inherently incredible. However, we decline to second-guess the
factfinder’s credibility determinations. See United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989); see also United
States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding
district court’s credibility determinations concerning evidence
presented at supervised release revocation hearing not reviewable
on appeal). Thus, we do not disturb the district court’s
credibility determinations on appeal.
Kelley also contends the victim’s testimony cannot serve
as the basis for finding Kelley violated his supervised release
because the testimony was uncorroborated. The uncorroborated
Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).
- 3 -
testimony of one witness may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.
United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence and testimony
before the district court, we find the district court’s factual
findings were not clearly erroneous. We conclude the Government
proved Kelley’s violation by a preponderance of the evidence and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Kelley’s supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
- 4 -