United States v. David Thompson, No. 23-3375 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Erickson, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant's revocation sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on a new criminal charge. [ April 25, 2024 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3375 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. David Byron Thompson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: April 19, 2024 Filed: April 26, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. David Thompson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. a brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on a new charge. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence upon revocation of Thompson’s supervised release. See United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). The court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (district court may impose consecutive or concurrent sentences and shall consider § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave 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.
