United States v. Floyd Ezell, No. 14-3233 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable; at sentencing, a district court cannot compute credit for time served and defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to do so is without merit. [ December 19, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3233 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Floyd Frank Ezell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2014 Filed: December 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Floyd Ezell directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed on him after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Ezell argues that the court abused 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. its discretion in failing to credit against his 4-month revocation sentence the time that he spent in state custody on a drug charge. This challenge is without merit. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992) (18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) does not authorize district court, at sentencing, to compute credit for time served). To the extent Ezell’s argument encompasses a claim that the revocation sentence imposed is unreasonable, we conclude after careful review that the below-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of revocation sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
