Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Patrick HORTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-18
Citations: 583 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 14-2222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Patrick HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Patrick HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-2222.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 7, 2014.
Filed: Nov. 18, 2014.
Brandon T. Carter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Glen R. Hines, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wendy L. Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard Patrick Horton, Pollock, LA, pro se.
John B. Schisler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard Horton directly appeals following the district court's revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the court (1) abused its discretion in revoking supervised release based on a finding that he committed the Arkansas offense of third degree assault on a household member; and (2) imposed an unreasonable sentence.
We conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Horton committed third degree assault, based on the court's inferences, from the totality of the evidence, that Horton had intended to scare the victim. See United States v. Carothers, 387 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (factfinding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error); United States v. Hensley, 36 F.3d 39, 41 (8th Cir.1994) (statutory construction is reviewed de novo); Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472, 477 (2000) (factfin-der may draw upon common knowledge and experience to infer defendant's intent). The court thus did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Carothers, 337 F.3d at 1019 (standard of review). We also conclude that the within-Guidelinesrange revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.