United States of America v. Altedias Maurice Campbell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1408
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Altedias Maurice Campbell
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: September 18, 2023
Filed: November 2, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After finding that Altedias Campbell violated the conditions of supervised
release by assaulting his girlfriend, the district court1 sent him back to prison for 14
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
months. Although he argues there was no violation and that his sentence is too long,
we affirm.
First, sufficient evidence supported the finding that Campbell assaulted his
girlfriend. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The victim herself testified—credibly, in
the district court’s view—about the who, when, where, why, and how of the attack.
A credibility determination like this one “is quintessentially a judgment call and
virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). So relying on her account, along with photographs of
her injuries, was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Sistrunk, 612 F.3d 988,
991 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that we will reverse only if we are left with a
“definite and firm conviction” that the district court made a mistake (citation
omitted)).
Second, to the extent Campbell challenges the sentence itself, we conclude it
is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th
Cir. 2008) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of
discretion). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the
statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c), (e)(3), and did not rely
on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v.
Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). We accordingly affirm the judgment
of the district court.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --