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Submitted: January 13, 2025 Filed: June 3, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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 court 1 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. 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-