United States v. Shahid Pratt, No. 08-1699 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Revocation sentence was not unreasonable, as it was within statutory limits and the Chapter 7 advisory range and was based on an analysis of the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1699 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Shahid R. Pratt, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 18, 2008 Filed: September 24, 2008 ___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Shahid Pratt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. We affirm. We find that the revocation sentence of 14 months in prison is not unreasonable. First, the sentence was within both the statutory limits and the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range of 8-14 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 2year prison term upon revocation of supervised release where original offense was 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Class C felony); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (range for Grade C violation with Category VI criminal history is 8-14 months in prison). Second, in sentencing Pratt, the district court considered appropriate factors, including Pratt s history and characteristics, the circumstances of his offense, and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(2), (a)(4)(B), § 3583(e) (permitting imposition of revocation sentence after consideration of certain § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and 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.
