United States of America v. Nemiah Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NEMIAH DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00276-KDB-SCR-7)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. Russ
Ferguson, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nemiah Davis appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and
sentencing him to 33 months’ imprisonment. Davis admitted testing positive for marijuana
(Violation 3) but denied committing new criminal conduct (Violations 1 and 2). On appeal,
Davis challenges the district court’s finding that he committed Violations 1 and 2. We
affirm.
“A district court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” United States v.
Mills, 173 F.4th 182, 188 (4th Cir. 2026) (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard
is satisfied if “the trier of fact . . . believe[s] that the existence of a fact is more probable
than its nonexistence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We review “a district
court’s revocation of supervised release . . . for abuse of discretion, meaning that we review
legal conclusions de novo and factual determinations for clear error.” Id. There is no clear
error if “the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed
in its entirety.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
After carefully reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the district
court did not clearly err in finding that the preponderance of the evidence established that
Davis committed Violations 1 and 2. Davis voluntarily admitted to the probation officer
that he engaged in a bank fraud conspiracy, and that admission was corroborated by the
physical evidence presented during the revocation hearing.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --