UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Walter TRALA, a/k/a Sonny, a/k/a Walter John Trala, Defendant-Appellant, 591 F. App'x 211

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following a hearing, the district court found that John Walter Traía violated the terms of his supervised release. The court revoked release and imposed a twenty-four-month sentence. Traía now appeals. We affirm. I The motion for revocation of supervised release charged two violations of release. First, Traía was alleged to have received stolen goods or property. Second, he was alleged to have possessed a firearm while a felon and to have possessed a stolen firearm.

The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Traía violated both conditions of 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. § 3588(e)(3) (2012). 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). Credibility determinations made by the district court at revocation hearings are rarely reviewable on appeal. United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir.2010) Traía incorrectly claims that the district court’s finding that he violated release was based solely on its determination that Tra-la’s testimony at the revocation hearing was not credible.

To the contrary, the district court specifically based its finding on the evidence as a whole as well as its credibility determination against Traía. Further, evidence presented at the hearing fully supports the district court’s finding. The evidence established that Traía possessed stolen ammunition and fired and attempted to sell a stolen Baretta. We conclude that the court did not clearly err in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that Traía committed the charged violations of supervised release. II We accordingly affirm.

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.