Court Opinion

ID: 9389802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:01:17.075279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.601099
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3512
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                David Michael Risse

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: April 10, 2023
                               Filed: April 26, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       After serving a prison sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm, see 26
U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871, David Risse was serving a term of supervised
release when his probation officer alleged that he had violated certain conditions of
his release, including the condition that he not commit any new crimes. Risse
disputed the allegations, but after a hearing the district court1 determined that he had
violated this last condition, revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to ten
months in prison. Risse appeals the court's decision. We affirm.

        Surveillance video captured Risse in his ex-girlfriend's garage one night
fiddling under the hood of her car and later leaning down next to a tire. Risse's ex-
girlfriend testified during the revocation hearing that she had asked Risse to move out
of her house shortly before the video captured him in the garage. She also explained
that she later found GPS trackers on her car and observed that the tire Risse had
leaned beside was going flat thanks to a nail. Risse testified at the hearing and
maintained that, when he was looking under the hood, he was putting water in the
windshield wiper fluid compartment, not installing a tracker. He also denied
damaging the tire, saying that he was merely replacing a valve stem. Finally, Risse
testified that it was a few days after he worked on the car that the pair had separated,
and so he still had permission to be in the garage at the time the video captured him.

       The district court found Risse's testimony "not credible," stating that "I do not
believe Mr. Risse" and that "[h]is testimony does not make sense to me." The court
instead credited his ex-girlfriend's testimony, noting that "I believe she asked him to
leave, and he came back and vandalized her car and trespassed." And so the court
found by a preponderance of the evidence that Risse had committed new crimes,
namely, trespassing and criminal mischief. See Iowa Code §§ 716.7(2)(a)(2), 716.1.

      Risse maintains that "the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that he
did not" commit new crimes and that the district court abused its discretion by
sentencing him as if he did. He points out that the video of him in the garage shows
some of his property present there, which he says supports his contention that he had

      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

                                          -2-
not yet been asked to leave. He also says that his ex-girlfriend did not substantiate her
claim that she had already asked him to leave her home or that her tire was ever
damaged.

       Risse's contentions are nothing more than an attack on the district court's
credibility findings, which are "virtually unassailable on appeal." See United States
v. Buford, 42 F.4th 872, 876 (8th Cir. 2022). Even though Risse's ex-girlfriend did not
corroborate portions of her testimony with additional evidence, the district court
nonetheless found her testimony sufficient to establish that she had asked Risse to
leave by the time he tinkered with her car and that her tire had been damaged.
Because Risse has failed to show on this record that we should disturb the district
court's credibility findings, we detect no abuse of discretion here.

      Affirmed.
                        ______________________________

                                          -3-