United States v. Altedias Campbell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 2, 2023
• Docket: 23-1408
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: September 18, 2023 Filed: November 2, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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. 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-