Court Opinion

ID: 9396403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:00:39.205098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.707516
License: Public Domain

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                                  [Unpublished]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
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 court 1 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.
                                      -2-
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
                                         -3-
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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -4-