United States v. Landein Craddock, No. 16-2262 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in making his sentence consecutive to a sentence imposed in the District of Kansas. [ November 17, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2262 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Landein Charles Craddock lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2016 Filed: November 18, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to robbery and firearm charges, Landein Charles Craddock appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release and 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. sentencing him to a total term of 46 months in prison, to run consecutively to a 15-year sentence imposed in the District of Kansas. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Craddock, as the court imposed the within-Guidelines sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that defendant is serving, whether or not sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from conduct that is basis of revocation); 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 sound discretion of district court). The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2-