United States v. Antiono Watkins, No. 07-2937 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed on revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable as it was within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and resulted from the court's consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a); court did not abuse its discretion in making the sentence run consecutive to state sentences; court did not err in declining to recommend defendant's placement in a medical facility.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2937 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Antonio Watkins, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 23, 2008 Filed: October 30, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Watkins appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record and counsel s brief, we affirm. We first conclude that Watkins s sentence is not unreasonable because it was within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and it resulted from the court s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Watkins s revocation sentence run consecutively to his state sentences. See United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir. 1996) (decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is committed to court s sound discretion); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment defendant is serving). Finally, we conclude that the district court did nothing improper in declining to recommend Watkins s placement in a medical facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (Bureau of Prisons shall designate place of prisoner s imprisonment). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
