UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4724
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN MATHEW RHODES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00240-TDS-7)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: July 10, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dianne J. McVay, JONES MCVAY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Justin Mathew Rhodes appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
two consecutive terms of eleven months’ imprisonment. Counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether the district court erred by: (1) finding
by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodes engaged in new
criminal conduct; and (2) sentencing Rhodes to consecutive terms
of imprisonment after revoking concurrent terms of supervised
release. Rhodes was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.
To revoke supervised release, a 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) (2012);
United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
This standard is met when the court “believe[s] that the
existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review for clear error
factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a
violation occurred. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017,
1019 (8th Cir. 2003). There is clear error if, after reviewing
2
the record, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodes
engaged in new criminal conduct. The district court based its
finding that Rhodes participated in the theft of a television on
testimony the court found credible, and Rhodes offers no
argument that undermines the court’s credibility determination.
See United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010)
(holding that credibility determinations made by district court
at revocation hearings are rarely reviewable on appeal).
Because the district court found by a preponderance of the
evidence that Rhodes engaged in new criminal conduct and Rhodes
admitted to violating two additional terms of his supervised
release, we conclude that the district court did not err by
revoking Rhodes’ supervised release.
We also conclude that, pursuant to our long-
established precedent, the district court did not err by
imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment upon revocation of
concurrent terms of supervised release. United States v.
Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1998).
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Rhodes, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Rhodes requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Rhodes. 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
4