United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3545

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Curtis J. Cotton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: May 12, 2017

 Filed: July 6, 2017

____________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. 

While on supervised release following a prison term for his 2009 bank robbery

conviction, Curtis Cotton was found to have violated the terms of his supervision by

committing assault, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c). The district court

1

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska. 
revoked Cotton’s supervision and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. 

Cotton challengesthe sufficiency of the government’s evidence. Having jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

I. Background

Cotton wassentenced to sixtymonths imprisonment and three years supervised

release after pleading guilty to bank robbery in 2009. He began his supervised

release on September 16, 2015. Relevant to the present case, the supervised release

included the following terms: (1) “The defendant shall not commit another federal,

state or local crime”; and (2) “The defendant shall not possess a firearm, destructive

device, or any other dangerous weapon.” On November 10, 2015, Cotton’s probation

officer filed a petition alleging that Cotton violated these two mandatory conditions.

Around 1:55 a.m. on October 26, 2015, Ryan Storey exited the Horseshoe

Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa, with approximately $8000 in baccarat winnings. As

Storey retrieved his overnight luggage from his truck in a hotel parking lot adjacent

to the casino, an armed assailant ran toward Storey shouting “hold up,” coming within

five to ten feet of Storey and pointing a large silver handgun at him. Storey jumped

back, shouted loudly, and ran into the hotel office. The assailant ran in the opposite

direction. The encounter lasted 10 to 15 seconds. 

Storey identified Cotton as the assailant. Cotton admitted that he was at the

Horseshoe Casino that night and that he made contact with Storey while in the casino. 

Storey testified that while he played baccarat with several thousand dollars in chips

in public view, Cotton lingered behind himand hung around asking questions. Storey

testified that Cotton stood out to him because he was just “moseying around the

casino,” was lingering behind him, and was not gambling. Storey remembered

conversing with Cotton at the casino.

-2-
Casino surveillance video shows that Cotton exited the casino with Bronson

Birdow through the same door as Storey about 20 seconds ahead of him and got into

a black Chevrolet Avalanche pickup truck waiting just outside the casino doors

driven by a third unidentified individual. Storey walked past the truck carrying a

pizza as he exited the casino. Casino parking lot video shows that the black truck

containing Cotton followed Storey at a distance with its lights off as Storey walked

to his vehicle. The same black truck is seen on the video following Storey’s vehicle

leaving the casino parking lot. Storey made the very short drive to the Country Inn

and Suites adjacent to the casino. The “hold up” incident occurred after Storey

checked in at the hotel desk and returned to his vehicle in the hotel parking lot to

retrieve his overnight luggage.

Storey testified that he recognized Cotton as the assailant because of his eyes,

voice, short stature, gait, and clothes—which he remembered from their interaction

and his observations of Cotton earlier at the casino. Cotton claims that he went

straight home from the casino, but called no witnesses to support that assertion.

The district court found “by the greater weight of the evidence” that Cotton

pointed a handgun at Storey in the parking lot that night, committing assault in

violation of Iowa state law. The district court, therefore, found Cotton guilty of both

violations since he broke an Iowa law and possessed a firearm. The district court

sentencedCotton to twenty-four months imprisonment followed by an additional year

of supervised release. 

Cotton appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and its

finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his supervised release, but not the

sentence imposed. 

-3-
II. Analysis

“We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings as to whether a

violation occurred.” United States v. Ralph, 480 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2007). 

“Clear error exists where, viewing the record as a whole, we are left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Finley, 612

F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) says, “A person commits an assault when,

without justification, the person . . . [i]ntentionally points any firearmtoward another,

or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.” 

Here, the district court found that “Curtis Cotton approached Ryan Storey . . . 

[and] pointed a handgun at him in the parking lot,” committing “assault under Iowa

Code § 708.1(2)(c).” 

We do not find clear error in the district court’s factual findings because there

is ample evidence to support these findings. Specifically, this evidence included: 

(1) Storey’s testimony that Cotton was present at the casino, “moseying

around” without gambling, and lingering around and behind Storey as

Storey gambled at the baccarat table with several thousand dollars of

casino chips visible, giving Cotton a motive to later approach Storey in

the hotel parking lot with a gun;

(2) Storey’s testimony, supported by video, showing that he had ample

opportunity to observe Cotton and to later identify him based upon his

size, clothing, eyes, voice, and other physical characteristics; 

(3) Casino video confirming that Cotton exited the casino almost

simultaneously with Storey and that he got into a black truck that

stealthily followed Storey as he walked to his vehicle in the casino

-4-
parking lot, and the same black truck followed Storey’s vehicle while

exiting the parking lot; 

(4) Storey’s identification of Cotton as the assailant with “ninety-five

percent certain[ty],” based upon the characteristics he observed in the

casino including Cotton’s eyes, clothing, size, voice, and other features; 

(5) Parking lot video corroborating Storey’s testimony about the “hold

up” regarding the nature of the attack including approach and retreat of

the attacker and the duration of the attack; and 

(6) Storey’s testimony that Cotton pointed a gun at him during the “hold

up” encounter saying the gun was “staring him in the chest” and that he

feared for his life. 

Bolstering the above evidence is the fact that the district court found Storey to be a

“verycredible witness throughoutthe entire proceedings,” and Storeywas extensively

cross-examined by Cotton’s counsel. Credibility determinations by the district court

based on testimony at supervised release revocation hearings “are virtually

unreviewable on appeal.” Ralph, 480 F.3d at 890 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In addition, Cotton did not dispute any of Storey’s testimony other than that

naming him as the assailant, and Cotton provided no evidence to support his claim

that he went straight home from the casino, in spite of the fact that he got into a truck

with two other potential witnesses who could have been called to corroborate his

story. Therefore, based upon the evidence above, we find no clear error in the district

court’s finding that Cotton intentionally pointed a gun at Storey in the hotel parking

lot. 

Next, the district court found that Cotton violated two terms of his supervised

release in pointing a gun at Storey. First, the district court found that Cotton

committed a crime in violation of Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) violating the term

of his release stating, “The defendant shall not commit another . . . state . . . crime.” 

-5-
Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) clearly defines “assault” as including “[i]ntentionally

point[ing] any firearm toward another.” Based upon the district court’s factual

finding above, the district court necessarily found that Cotton committed the state

crime of assault and therefore violated a term of his supervision. Second, in finding

that Cotton pointed a gun at Storey, the district court had to find that Cotton violated

the term of his supervision that stated, “The defendant shall not possess a firearm,”

since Cotton obviously possessed the firearm he was brandishing.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we find that the district court did not clearly err

in its factual determination that Cotton committed an Iowa crime in the parking lot

of a hotel by pointing a gun at another thereby violating the terms of his supervised

release. 

Affirmed.

______________________________

-6-