Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02187/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance Pegues
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2187

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Lance Pegues, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 29, 2007

Filed: April 6, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lance Pegues appeals the 24-month prison term imposed by the district court1

following revocation of his supervised release. He argues that it was error for the

court to order his sentence to be served consecutively to an undischarged state term

of imprisonment.

We disagree. At the revocation hearing, many matters relevant to sentencing

were brought to the district court’s attention, including Pegues’s repeated violations

Appellate Case: 06-2187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296252
-2-

of the law, his poor response to supervision, and his need for psychological and

substance-abuse treatment. The district court heard and rejected Pegues’s lengthy

argument for a concurrent sentence, instead choosing to impose a consecutive

sentence as advised in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and commenting in particular that two

years of federal custody would afford Pegues an opportunity to get the help he needed.

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Larison,

432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006) (court reviews revocation sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005)

(district court must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining revocation

sentence, but need not make specific findings on each factor; all that is required is

evidence that court considered relevant matters in imposing sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296252