United States of America v. Kevin F. Thomas, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1116
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kevin F. Thomas, Jr.
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: January 13, 2025
Filed: June 3, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
The district court1 sentenced Kevin Thomas to 24 months in prison after
finding that he violated the conditions of supervised release, including by assaulting
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, then District Judge, now Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
an ex-girlfriend. He argues that the assault never happened and his sentence is
substantively unreasonable.
We conclude otherwise. On this record, there was nothing clearly erroneous
about finding that Thomas violated the no-new-crimes condition by committing an
assault. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (allowing the district court to revoke supervised
release if it finds a violation “by a preponderance of the evidence”); United States v.
Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing for clear error). Look no
further than his ex-girlfriend’s testimony, which described how he put his hands
around her neck and squeezed. See United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th
Cir. 2010) (deciding who to believe is “quintessentially a judgment call and virtually
unassailable on appeal” (citation omitted)). Under Iowa law, those actions qualify
as domestic-abuse assault. See Iowa Code § 708.2A(5); see also 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)).
Thomas’s substantive-reasonableness challenge fares no better. See United
States v. Clark, 998 F.3d 363, 367 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing for an abuse of
discretion); see also United States v. Williams, 913 F.3d 1115, 1116 (8th Cir. 2019)
(noting that a “within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable”). The record
shows that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors,
see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or
commit a clear error of judgment. See Clark, 998 F.3d at 369–70. Among other
things, it explained that Thomas received a longer sentence because he was
dangerous, missed numerous drug tests, and left the district without permission. We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --