United States v. Thompson

── United States v. Thompson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3019 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 13, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-3019 JORDAN THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-40049-TC-1) _________________________________ Kayla Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Melody Brannon, Federal Public Defender, with her on the briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellant. Jared S. Maag, Assistant United States Attorney (Duston J. Slinkard, Acting United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, EBEL, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ EID, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Jordan Thompson entered the military housing of his estranged wife, Jessica Haraughty, with a gun in hand and the goal of retrieving his three-year-old daughter. Inside, he found Haraughty on the couch with another service member, Joesph  Appellate Case: 25-3019 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 2 Libbrecht, prompting Thompson to threaten to shoot Libbrecht if he did not “get the f*** out of the house.” R. Vol. I at 490. Based on these events, Thompson was charged with three felonies and ultimately found guilty by a jury on one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in a special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). Thompson now appeals, raising two issues with the district court proceedings. First, he argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial based on evidence he obtained after trial suggesting that Haraughty and Libbrecht colluded to lie before the jury about their relationship. Second, Thompson alleges that the district court plainly erred in selecting a higher sentence based on his position as a police officer. Before turning to the merits, we must first consider whether the case is moot, since Thompson was released from Bureau of Prisons custody during the pendency of this appeal. Finding the case not moot because of Thompson’s continuing term of supervised release, we then reject Thompson’s new trial argument based on his lack of diligence in discovering the post-trial evidence. We agree with Thompson, however, that the district court plainly erred when it found that his professional status as a police officer justified an increased sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the new trial motion but vacate Thompson’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 2  Appellate Case: 25-3019 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 3 I. Jordan Thomp