UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4343
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FABIAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-01146-HMH-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: September 21, 2012
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fabian Williams was convicted of violating the terms
of his supervised release and was sentenced to twenty-one months
in prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
two issues but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Although he was advised of his right to file a pro se
brief, Williams has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
I
Williams first contends that there was insufficient
evidence upon which to find that he violated the terms of his
release. We review a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir 1992). To revoke release,
the district court need only find a violation of a condition of
release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2011). This burden “simply requires
the trier of fact to believe 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 findings underlying
the conclusion that a violation of supervised release occurred.
United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
2
Credibility determinations made by the district court at
revocation hearings are rarely reviewable. United States v.
Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2010).
At Williams’ revocation hearing, an officer testified
that he detected a strong smell of marijuana inside the vehicle
Williams was driving. Williams attempted to flee the scene, and
a struggle, during which the officer was injured, ensued.
Officers recovered from the vehicle a number of empty baggies,
250 grams of marijuana packaged in baggies, and digital scales.
Additionally, officers found $482 in cash on Williams’ person.
The officer testified that the manner in which the marijuana was
packaged, the presence of scales, and the cash were associated
with marijuana distribution.
Based on this testimony, we conclude that the court
did not clearly err in finding that Williams possessed the
marijuana with intent to distribute it and assaulted the
officer, thereby violating the terms of release. Further, in
light of the statutory requirement that release be revoked when
the defendant possesses a controlled substance, see 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(g)(1) (West Supp. 2011), revocation of supervised release
was not an abuse of discretion.
3
II
Williams also contends that his twenty-one-month
sentence is unreasonable. A sentence imposed following
revocation of supervised release will be affirmed if it is
within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40
(4th Cir 2006). Williams’ sentence is below the statutory
maximum of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3).
Further, the sentence is procedurally reasonable: the district
court considered both the Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors that it was
permitted to consider. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.
Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, for the court
adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence,
noting especially that Williams attempted to harm the officer.
See id. at 440.
III
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
4
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 of the motion was served
on his client. 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
5