United States v. Andre Chambers

── United States v. Andre Chambers ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4602 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4602 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE SEBASTON CHAMBERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00174-TDS-1) Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026 Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Todd Allen Smith, SMITH GILES, PLLC, Burlington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4602 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Andre Sebaston Chambers pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (2). The district court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by one year of supervised release, which commenced in October 2024. In 2025, Chambers admitted to violating four terms of his supervised release by testing positive for marijuana use, failing to make timely restitution payments, failing to maintain full-time employment, and failing to report for drug screens. However, Chambers denied falsifying a urinalysis compliance card for his September 2025 drug screen; he asserted that he reported for the September 2025 drug screen. After conducting several hearings, the district court revoked Chambers’s supervised release and sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. Chambers now appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in finding Chambers guilty of the fifth charged violation of his supervised release and whether his revocation sentence is reasonable. Chambers was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. 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. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 435 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This burden simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4602 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 district court's revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion, evaluating its legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. Id. Here, Chambers admitted four of the five charged violations. Based on the testimony before the district court, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that Chambers also violated the fifth charged violation by falsifying a urinalysis compliance card for a drug screen. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretio