United States of America v. Lonnel Porter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3492
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lonnel Porter
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: June 10, 2024
Filed: June 28, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In the summer of 2022, Lonnel Porter was on supervised release related to
convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and escape. Porter appeals

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 27
months’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Evidence of a supervised release violation must be proven by a preponderance
of the evidence. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
Porter challenges the district court’s determination that he committed a new law
violation of assault on a police officer causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa
Code § 708.3A(3). We review the district court’s decision to revoke supervision for
abuse of discretion and the underlying factual findings for clear error. Id.
Porter argues the district court erred in finding the specific intent required to
establish assault under Iowa law. See Iowa Code § 708.1(2) (defining assault); State
v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa 2010). Section 708.1(2)(a) defines the
intent required as: “[a]ny act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which
is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to
another.” At the hearing, Officer Carson Lutterman testified about the events of July
28, 2022, recounting that when he responded to a domestic disturbance call Porter
became loud, argumentative, and resisted arrest. Relying on this testimony, the
district court found that Porter had committed an assault and engaged in acts that
satisfied the requisite intent as set forth in Iowa Code § 708.1(2). We find no clear
error in the court’s factual findings. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion
when it decided to revoke Porter’s supervised release.
Porter also asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review
his claim under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see United States v.
Steele, 899 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir. 2018), applying “the same reasonableness
standard that applies to initial sentencing proceedings.” United States v. Boelter,
806 F.3d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Here, the district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
specifically considering Porter’s mental health issues, criminal history, and the
nature of the underlying violations. The district court imposed a sentence within the
advisory Guidelines range, which is presumptively reasonable. See United States v.
Haynes, 62 F.4th 454, 460 (8th Cir. 2023). While Porter argues that too much weight
was given to the disputed new law violation, the district court has discretion to give
certain sentencing factors more weight than others. See United States v. Townsend,
617 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court neither abused its discretion
when it sentenced Porter to a within-Guidelines sentence, nor did it impose a
substantively unreasonable revocation sentence.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --