United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2219

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lamonte Dior Dickens

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: April 13, 2018

Filed: May 30, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Lamonte Dior Dickens pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
to 37 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. After prison, he

violated the conditions of release. The court revoked the release, sentencing him to

five months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. After prison, he again

violated the conditions of release. The court revoked the release, sentencing him to

11 months’ imprisonment and 20 months’ supervised release. He appeals. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Dickens believes the district court clearly erred in finding he violated the

conditions of his supervised release. This court reviews “the district court’s decision

to revoke supervised release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Boyd, 792

F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir. 2015). “[T]he court’s subsidiary factfinding as to whether or

not a violation occurred is reviewed for clear error.” Id. 

Dickens challenges violation 2 which says:

Violation 2: On May 9, 2017, the defendant appeared before Chief U.S.

Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams for a scheduled Detention Hearing. 

Following this hearing, as the defendant was being escorted out of the

courtroom, the defendant made eye contact with this officer and

Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Justin Lightfoot and was overheard

saying, “I’m gonna slap that bitch.” Additionally, on May 16, 2017, the

defendant contacted this officer from the Linn County, Iowa,

Correctional Facility. During this conversation, the defendant stated, “I

don’t think I should be going back to prison just for saying I slap you.” 

This officer spoke with AUSA Lightfoot regarding the defendant’s

statement following his Detention Hearing and during his phone

conversation with this officer. The government is prepared to present

evidence at revocation proceedings that the defendant has committed the

federal offense of Influencing, Impeding, or Retaliating Against a

Federal Official by Threatening or Injuring a Family Member as defined

under Title 18 U.S.C. § 115, punishable by not more than one (1) year

imprisonment.

-2-
At the revocation hearing, Dickens contested this violation. Deputy United

States Marshal Michael Gloeckner testified. He said that on May 9, 2017, Dickens

said “slap that bitch” while looking in the direction of his probation officer, Rhonda

Moyle. On cross-examination, Deputy Gloeckner admitted he could not “say with

certainty that Mr. Dickens’s comments were directed at Ms. Moyle.” Officer Moyle

also testified. She said Dickens stared at her throughout his detention hearing. 

Exiting the courtroom, he looked at her and said, “I’m gonna slap that bitch.” Officer

Moyle believes the comment was directed at her. When she spoke with Deputy

Gloeckner, he said he shared her belief. On May 16, Dickens called Officer Moyle

from jail. In a recording from the conversation, Dickens says something like, “I don’t

think I should be going back to prison for saying I slap you.” Dickens testified the

comment was not directed at Officer Moyle. Instead, he claimed he said, “I should

have slapped that bitch,” referring to a female resident at the residential center where

he had been staying.

At the close of evidence, the district court made factual findings:

On the allegations in the petition. The Court’s findings are by a

preponderance of the evidence. 

. . . . 

In terms of the new law violation, which is violation 2, the Court finds

by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Dickens did say in reference

to Officer Moyle and to Officer Moyle “I’m gonna slap that bitch,” and

in addition to that testimony and that incident, he made admissions to

saying that when he called her on the telephone. Now, he may not have

had the petition that was filed with the court, but he knew what had

happened in the courtroom with reference to her.

The Court has looked at Title 18 United States Code Section 115, which

makes it a federal crime to try to influence, impede, or retaliate against

a federal official by threatening or injuring a family member, and the

-3-
Court finds that that has been established by a preponderance of the

evidence.

Crediting the testimony of Deputy Gloeckner and Officer Moyle, the district court

found Dickens committed violation 2 based on a preponderance of the evidence. “The

district court’s assessment of witness credibility is quintessentially a judgment call

and virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Manzano-Huerta, 809 F.3d

440, 445 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not

clearly err in finding this violation. See United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th

Cir. 2010) (“Our review, then, is not to determine what conclusion we might reach in

the case were we to sit as the finders of fact, but to determine whether the district

court’s factual findings amount to clear error.”).

Dickens contends his 11-month sentence (guidelines 5 to 11 months) is

substantively unreasonable. This court “review[s] the substantive reasonableness of

a sentence imposed after a revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.”

United States v. Longs, 806 F.3d 1001, 1001 (8th Cir. 2015). “The district court

abuses its discretion when it does not consider a factor that should have received

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

makes a clear error of judgment.” United States v. White, 840 F.3d 550, 554 (8th Cir.

2016). “[I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court

sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as

substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc).

In sentencing Dickens, the court said that it “carefully considered each and

every factor under 18 United States Code Section 3553(a) that applies in a revocation

proceeding.” The court also discussed his dangerous behavior, lack of commitment

to counseling, poor impulse control, and lack of truthfulness:

-4-
And Mr. Dickens is dangerous. He doesn’t like to admit his assaultive

past, but it’s a matter of record. In his presentence investigation report,

he’s been intimidating, aggressive, and violent since at least age 15

when, if you can believe it, he assaulted an alternative high school

teacher. That’s age 15, and the assaultive behavior continued. He likes

to pick on women. There are some men here that he has assaulted or

some people whose names I can’t tell if they’re men or women. But

clearly, this is his pattern of behavior.

And I’m just shocked at his complaint toward Officer Moyle, that she

didn’t get him the help that he needed. As a matter of fact, in the

supervision summary, we see that he had been referred on May 2nd for

an evaluation at St. Luke’s Chemical Dependency Service, on May 8th,

he was referred to Thinking for a Change, but he couldn’t even hold it

together long enough to get to those classes and start to work on his

problems. So he wants everything instantaneously, and that

doesn’t—that’s not how the world works. You have to get the

programming scheduled, which Officer Moyle did, but he had to—he

was in everybody’s face and being aggressive and threatening before he

could even get to the class work.

I am very concerned about his inability to control himself. He’s

threatening, aggressive, impulsive. He doesn’t understand the

seriousness of his offense. He thinks this is no big deal, and that is

extremely concerning, and is also counterintuitive for somebody who

says that they want help. The first thing you have to do is accept your

behavior and realize that it is improper and that it is causing you

problems, as well as the people that you are threatening.

He’s not truthful. Today he testified under oath and was not truthful in

this courtroom.

So the Court finds, after a full consideration of everything I know about

him, that the appropriate disposition, the sentence that is appropriate

under all the facts and circumstances, is a revocation of probation—or

of supervision and a return to prison for Mr. Dickens, 11 months,

followed by 20 months of supervised release.

-5-
The court did not abuse its discretion imposing a within-guidelines sentence.

* * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-6-