United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2576

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thomas Leonard Campbell

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa

____________ 

Submitted: January 9, 2023

Filed: May 22, 2023

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Thomas Campbell was on supervised release for a second time after 

completing a prison term for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), and possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c). In the summer of 2022, the United 

States Probation Office petitioned the district court to revoke Campbell’s supervised 
-2- 

release, alleging he violated several conditions of his release, including using 

controlled substances and alcohol, failing to participate in substance abuse testing, 

failing to comply with mental health treatment, and committing a new law violation. 

Regarding the new law violation, Probation alleged Campbell committed first degree 

harassment in violation of Iowa law by threatening to commit acts of violence and 

intentionally alarming medical workers while receiving mental health treatment at a 

medical facility. See Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(b) and (2)(a)(1). 

At sentencing, Campbell admitted each alleged violation except the new law 

violation. After hearing the evidence, the district court1 found by a preponderance 

of the evidence that Campbell committed first degree harassment in violation of 

Iowa law. Taking this into account, the district court calculated a United States 

Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) revocation sentence range of 12 to 18 months

of imprisonment. The district court sentenced Campbell to 18 months of 

imprisonment followed by a one-year term of supervised release. Campbell now 

challenges the revocation sentence on appeal, first contending the district court erred 

by finding he committed first degree harassment in violation of Iowa law. 

“A district court may ‘revoke supervised release if the government proves by 

a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised 

release.’” United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United 

States v. Boyd, 792 F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir. 2015)). We review a district court’s

findings regarding violations for clear error and will reverse “only if we have a 

definite and firm conviction that the District Court was mistaken.” Boyd, 792 F.3d 

at 919 (quoting United States v. Willis, 433 F.3d 634, 636 (8th Cir. 2006)). 

Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(b) provides that “[a] person commits harassment when 

the person, purposefully and without legitimate purpose, has personal contact with 

another person, with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm that other person.” 

1

The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa. 
-3- 

The evidence at the revocation hearing revealed Campbell made threatening 

statements to medical center staff, including his desire to blow up a specific federal 

building and kill police officers. Campbell also said he wanted “thousands” of 

people to die. The psychiatric nurse practitioner who treated Campbell and reported 

the statements to law enforcement testified at the hearing that he believed Campbell

made these statements to alarm and upset the nurse practitioner. The nurse 

practitioner further testified that while Campbell’s statements were delusional and 

paranoid, Campbell was oriented as to person, place, and time, further shedding light 

on the intent of Campbell’s statements. Based on this information, we conclude the 

district court’s finding by a preponderance of evidence that Campbell violated Iowa 

law was not clearly erroneous. 

 Campbell next argues the sentence imposed by the district court was 

substantively unreasonable. “[W]e review the sentence for substantive 

reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Boyum, 54 

F.4th 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2022). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes 

an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, 

gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the 

appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” 

United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008). No abuse of discretion 

occurred here.

The 18-month sentence is within the Guidelines range and is therefore

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Meadows, 866 F.3d 913, 920 (8th 

Cir. 2017). Moreover, the district court considered and evaluated appropriate 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), focusing on

Campbell’s previous violations of supervised release, his criminal history and 

mental health, the need to protect the public from further criminal activity, and

Campbell’s likelihood to engage in further criminal conduct. We reject Campbell’s 

argument that it was improper for the district court to consider the new law violation

when it imposed his sentence. The conduct underlying the new law violation 

involved threatening statements that implicate the need to protect the public from 
-4- 

criminal activity and Campbell’s likelihood to engage in further criminal conduct. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering Campbell’s statements 

when imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 

379 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) 

factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in 

determining an appropriate sentence.”). 

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________