Court Opinion

ID: 9408598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 15:01:27.497937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:45.595925
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2272
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                              Jeremiah James Lynch

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

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

                           Submitted: January 11, 2023
                              Filed: July 13, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In 2004, Jeremiah Lynch pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. After
serving his prison sentence, he began his first term of supervised release. In 2018,
Lynch’s supervised release was revoked, and he was ordered to serve 21 months in
prison, followed by a 2-year term of supervised release. Lynch’s second term of
supervised release began in April 2021. On June 2, 2022, the district court 1 again
revoked Lynch’s supervised release and imposed a 51-month sentence and an
additional 5-year term of supervised release. Lynch appeals.

                                          I.

      On May 3, 2022, Lynch’s wife Alyssa Lynch (Alyssa) contacted the
Davenport Police Department to report that Lynch had assaulted her the night before.
Officer Justin Adams responded and spoke with Alyssa in person. According to
Officer Adams, Alyssa told him that she and Lynch got into a verbal argument that
turned physical when Lynch grabbed her, hit her arms, and “started to strangle her.”
On May 6, 2022, a Temporary Protective Order for domestic abuse was filed against
Lynch. Later that same day, Lynch violated the order and was arrested.

       Shortly thereafter, the United States probation office petitioned for revocation
of Lynch’s supervised release, alleging two violations: (1) his May 6 arrest (a Grade
C violation); and (2) commission of the state law offense of domestic assault by
strangulation 2 on May 2 (a Grade A violation). See United States Sentencing
Guidelines § 7B1.1(a) (describing the three grades of supervised release violations);
id. § 7B1.4(a) (specifying the range of imprisonment applicable upon revocation
based on the grade of the violation).

      Lynch contested the violations, and the district court held an evidentiary
hearing. At the hearing, Officer Adams testified about his conversation with Alyssa
on May 3. He also described his conversation with Alyssa’s daughter, K.C., who

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
      2
        The petition alleged “Domestic Assault/Impeding Blood/Airflow-
Strangulation with Injury,” which we shorthand here as domestic assault by
strangulation. See Iowa Code § 708.2A(5). Lynch was not charged with domestic
assault in state court.

                                         -2-
told him that she heard her mother and Lynch arguing the night of the May 2 assault.
According to Officer Adams, K.C. said that her mother had yelled for her to call the
police. K.C. then saw Lynch “attempting to strangle her mother.” The government
also introduced photographs of Alyssa taken after Officer Adams arrived. The
photos depicted red marks and bruises at various spots on Alyssa’s upper chest, neck,
and arm. And Lynch’s supervising probation officer, Kristin Schrems, testified
about a text she received from Alyssa on May 5. The text read: “Hey Kristin, this is
Jeremiah’s wife, Alyssa. I just want to let you know a warrant has been issued for
his arrest. He seriously assaulted me in front of our children. He could have killed
me. He’s been messing up REAL bad lately with everything.”

        Alyssa also testified. She explained that she and Lynch were “just tussling”
the night of May 2, that “[h]e didn’t beat [her] up,” and that “[h]e didn’t hit [her].”
She also said that Lynch “did not try to choke [her].” Alyssa conceded she told law
enforcement otherwise, but insisted she only did so to get a protection order against
Lynch. She said she “exaggerated everything that happened” that night. Alyssa also
denied sustaining bruises or having any difficulty breathing as a result of her
altercation with Lynch. As to the text message to Officer Schrems, Alyssa described
that, too, as an effort to get Lynch “in trouble” and “to make him out as a bad guy.”

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found by a preponderance
of the evidence that Lynch had committed both alleged violations. The more serious
of the two violations—domestic assault by strangulation—was a Grade A violation,
see USSG § 7B1.1(a)(1), which resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of 51–63
months. See id. § 7B1.1(b) (“Where there is more than one violation of the
conditions of supervision, . . . the grade of the violation is determined by the violation
having the most serious grade.”). The district court imposed a 51-month sentence,
with a 5-year term of supervised release to follow.

                                           -3-
                                          II.

       On appeal, Lynch does not contest that he violated the terms of his supervised
release. Rather, he challenges the classification of his state offense violation,
arguing that the government merely established that his May 2 conduct constituted
a Grade C—not a Grade A—violation for purposes of his advisory Guidelines range.
We review the district court’s “underlying fact-finding—whether [Lynch] violated
his supervised release by committing a new state crime—for clear error.” United
States v. Mitchell, 2 F.4th 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). To
the extent the district court makes credibility determinations, they are “almost never
clear error given that court’s comparative advantage at evaluating credibility.”
United States v. Salsberry, 825 F.3d 499, 501 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States
v. Sandoval-Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438, 443 (8th Cir. 2011)).

       Lynch argues the district court erred by finding that there was sufficient
evidence he committed the offense of domestic assault by strangulation. Under
Iowa law, a defendant commits domestic assault by strangulation “by knowingly
impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another by applying
pressure to the throat or neck of the other person or by obstructing the nose or mouth
of the other person, and causing bodily injury.” Iowa Code § 708.2A(5) (2017).
Domestic assault by strangulation is a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment
of no more than five years. See id. §§ 708.2A(5), 902.9(1)(e). In contrast, a
domestic abuse assault that only “causes bodily injury or mental illness” is a “serious
misdemeanor” punishable by up to one year of imprisonment. See id. §§
708.2A(2)(b), 903.1(1)(b). Therefore, the felony offense of domestic assault by
strangulation is a Grade A violation under the Guidelines, whereas the serious
misdemeanor offense of domestic abuse assault is a Grade C violation. See USSG
§ 7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing in relevant part that Grade A violations include
conduct constituting a state offense “punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year that . . . is a crime of violence”); id. § 7B1.1(a)(3)(A) (providing
in relevant part that Grade C violations include conduct constituting a state offense
“punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less”).
                                         -4-
       The difference between these two statutory provisions is significant for
purposes of calculating Lynch’s advisory Guidelines range. If Lynch’s conduct
constituted a Grade C rather than a Grade A violation, as he argues, his advisory
Guidelines range would have been 8–14 months, rather than 51–63 months. See
USSG §§ 7B1.1(b), 7B1.4(a).

       The district court directly addressed Lynch’s argument—the same one he
raises on appeal—that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he “knowingly
imped[ed Alyssa’s] normal breathing or circulation of the blood.” 3 See Iowa Code
§ 708.2A(5). The district court specifically found that “to leave bruises of that nature
across that extensive portion of [Alyssa’s] neck, [Lynch] had to have impeded her
ability to breathe.” The court said its conclusion was further supported by Officer
Adams’ testimony that both Alyssa and K.C. used the word “strangle” when
describing the events of May 2, as well as by the text Alyssa sent to Officer Schrems
stating, “He could have killed me.” Alyssa’s testimony was to the contrary, but the
district court declined to credit it, finding it “grossly inconsistent with what [Alyssa]
said at the time the injuries happened” and “[not] at all believable.”

       Lynch asserts in response that the evidence showed, at most, that he attempted
to strangle Alyssa, not that he succeeded in “impeding [her] normal breathing or
circulation of blood.” Lynch points out that Alyssa said he “started to strangle her.”
And K.C. said she saw him “attempting to strangle” Alyssa. But even if Iowa Code
§ 708.2A(5) does not encompass attempts—a proposition on which we take no
position—the district court found that Lynch did, in fact, impede Alyssa’s breathing
during the domestic assault. Given the testimonial and photographic evidence
presented at the hearing, we see no clear error in the district court’s finding, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Lynch’s conduct on May 2 amounted to a
domestic assault by strangulation.

      3
       Lynch does not contest that he “appl[ied] pressure to the throat or neck” of
Alyssa. He argues only that he did not “knowingly imped[e] [Alyssa’s] normal
breathing or circulation of [her] blood.”
                                          -5-
                             III.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
               ______________________________

                             -6-