United States v. Steven Petersen, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117

Steven Petersen, on supervised release after a 2008 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, was prohibited from committing new crimes and from entering certain alcohol-selling establishments.
In February 2016 Petersen was asked to leave a bar patio after making threats to the manager; shortly thereafter he left a voicemail for his daughter asking her to "bust [the manager's] nose," offering $100 and to pay fines.
The manager reported the incident; Iowa charged Petersen with solicitation to commit an aggravated misdemeanor; the probation officer petitioned to revoke supervised release for multiple violations (including the new-state-charge and entering a bar).
At the revocation hearing the district court credited testimony from the manager’s friend, the deputy sheriff, and Petersen’s daughter, found Petersen not totally credible, and determined by a preponderance he solicited the assault.
The court treated the solicitation as a Grade C violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, yielding a Guidelines revocation range of 4–10 months, and sentenced Petersen to 8 months imprisonment plus one year supervised release.
Petersen appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of a new offense and that the 8-month sentence was substantively unreasonable; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported finding Petersen committed a new offense (solicitation)	Petersen: voicemail was mere "venting," lacked intent to actually solicit an assault	Government: voicemail plus prior threats, daughter’s understanding, and failure to retract establish intent and corroboration	Court: Sufficient by preponderance; district court not clearly erroneous in finding solicitation
Whether 8-month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable	Petersen: prior nearly two years of compliance and mitigation argue for leniency	Government/District Court: 3553(a) factors, history of violence, substance abuse, risk of recidivism justify sentence	Court: No abuse of discretion; within Guidelines and not the unusual case to disturb

United States v. Boyd, 792 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2015) (burden and standard for supervised-release revocation)
United States v. Willis, 433 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2006) (clear-error standard for factual findings on revocation)
United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (factors showing sentencing court abused its discretion)
United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2007) (weighting of sentencing factors)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (rarely reverse for substantive unreasonableness)
United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (same principle on deference to sentencing)
State v. Grant, 722 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa 2006) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)