Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02936/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02936-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Edward Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2936

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Randy Edward Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007

Filed: November 5, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy Davis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 upon

revocation of his supervised release. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In August 2004, Davis commenced his 3-year term of supervised release

imposed in 2001 when he pleaded guilty to a Class C felony, conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Davis was arrested in January 2006

pursuant to a federal indictment charging him with another drug conspiracy, and he

Appellate Case: 06-2936 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369175
-2-

eventually pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug

crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and was sentenced to 48 months in prison

and 1 year of supervised release on that offense. The district court also conducted

Davis’s revocation hearing, at which Davis admitted the violations cited in the

revocation petition--that he had used a telephone in relation to a drug-trafficking

crime, and had possessed cocaine--and the court imposed a revocation sentence of 24

months in prison, with 12 months to be served concurrently with to the 48-month

telephone-facilitation sentence, and 12 months to be served consecutively to it. For

reversal, Davis argues that his revocation sentence is too severe.

Following careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed, which does

not exceed the statutory maximum, was not unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(standard of review); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004)

(district court fashioning revocation sentence must consider relevant matters and state

some reason for its decision; court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

where it showed awareness of supervised-release violations, criminal history,

suggested Chapter 7 range, and statutory maximum). Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2936 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369175