UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4999
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLINTES HAILI JEFFRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00431-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 12, 2009 Decided: July 15, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Aaron Goss,
Third Year Law Student, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clintes Haili Jeffries was found guilty of violating
his federal supervised release for the following violations: (1)
failure to make monthly restitution payments; (2) failure to
notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of his
arrest; and (3) committing further crimes. Jeffries was
arrested on state charges of Felony Forgery of Instrument and
Felony Uttering Forged Instrument and Felony Obtain Property by
False Pretense. Jefferies was sentenced to twenty-four months
of imprisonment. On appeal, Jeffries contests only his third
violation.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
finding of guilt for the third violation. See United States v.
Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing review
standard). A district court need only find a violation of a
condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the
evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009).
We find no clear error in the district court’s factual findings,
following an evidentiary hearing on the matter, that Jeffries
was the person who passed a counterfeit check to the victim.
See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.
2003) (stating review standard); United States v. Whalen, 82
F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996) (same). We do not review a
2
district court’s assessment of witness credibility. United
States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3