United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 09-1752
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                  * District Court for the
                                          * Eastern District of Arkansas.
Paul Mitchell Lilly,                      *
                                          * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                   *
                                     ___________

                               Submitted: June 12, 2009
                                  Filed: June 22, 2009
                                   ___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Paul Lilly challenges the eighteen-month sentence he received following the
district court's1 determination Lilly violated the terms of his supervised release by,
inter alia, threatening to harm an attorney by assaulting her with a padlock placed
inside a sock. Lilly argues the district court erred in determining the threat constituted
a felony under Arkansas law, triggering a Grade A violation of supervised release
under U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 7B1.1, which recommends



      1
       The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
a revocation term of 18-24 months. Lilly argues his eighteen-month sentence is
therefore unreasonable. We affirm.

        We reject Lilly's contention the district court should have viewed the padlock-
in-a-sock threat as a Grade C violation of supervised release (with a recommended
revocation term of 5-11 months) because the threat constituted a misdemeanor rather
than a felony. Lilly's threat constituted felony terroristic threatening if he threatened
"serious physical injury," Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(1)(A), while a threat of mere
"physical injury" would be considered a misdemeanor. 

5-13-301(b)(1).
Arkansas defines "physical injury" as "[i]mpairment of physical condition; . . .
[i]nfliction of substantial pain; or . . . [i]nfliction of bruising, swelling, or a visible
mark associated with physical trauma," Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(14), whereas
"[s]erious physical injury" is defined as "physical injury that creates a substantial risk
of death or that causes protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or
loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." 

5-1-102(21).

       The district court did not err in determining a beating with a padlock placed
inside a sock could cause protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health,
or a loss or protracted impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ, and
thus satisfied the definition of serious physical injury. See, e.g., Lum v. State, 

, 267 (Ark. 1984) (holding that three blows to the head with a fist resulting
in fractures to the face and a five-day hospitalization was sufficient to support a
finding of serious physical injury).

       The District Court properly calculated the Guideline range and did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Lilly within such range.

      We affirm.
                         ______________________________

                                           -2-