The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-3605•United States of America v. Richard Patrick Horton
13-3605Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitNov 28, 2014
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2222
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Richard Patrick Horton
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: November 7, 2014
Filed: November 18, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Richard Horton directly appeals following the district court’s 1 revocation of his
supervised release, arguing that the court (1) abused its discretion in revoking
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
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, 337 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, 8 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Ark. 2000)
(factfinder 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-Guidelines-range 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.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.