Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01673/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01673-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Lee Patrick
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1673

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David Lee Patrick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 15, 2008

Filed: January 17, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Lee Patrick (Patrick) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after revoking his supervised release. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief,

we conclude Patrick’s challenge to the district court’s failure to credit him for time

previously served in his other revocation cases is without merit because the district

court lacked authority to give him such credit. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S.

329, 333-35 (1992) (declaring the Attorney General, not the district court, has the

responsibility for computing credit for time served under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)); United

Appellate Case: 07-1673 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Entry ID: 3392678
-2-

States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 887-88 (8th Cir. 2006) (same), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.

1028 (2007). 

We further conclude Patrick’s sentence is not unreasonable because it was

within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and the sentence resulted

from the court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See

United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding an appellate

court reviews a revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation

to, inter alia, the advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); United States v.

Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (stating revocation sentences

are reviewed for reasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005)).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1673 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Entry ID: 3392678