Background
Nemiah Davis appealed the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty-three months in prison. While Davis admitted to testing positive for marijuana, he denied committing new criminal conduct. The district court found he committed Violations One and Two, which involved new criminal conduct.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard that a district court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition. The appellate court reviews factual determinations for clear error, asking whether the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. The court concluded there was no clear error because Davis voluntarily admitted to the probation officer that he engaged in a bank fraud conspiracy, and this admission was corroborated by physical evidence presented during the revocation hearing.
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)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that voluntary admissions of new criminal conduct, when corroborated by physical evidence, are sufficient to sustain a supervised release revocation under the preponderance of the evidence standard.