Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01708/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01708-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Neal Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1708

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Billy Neal Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Neal Davis (Davis) pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis argues on appeal the

district court1

 erred when, over his objection, it applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) instead

of section 5G1.3(b) and declined to adjust his sentence for time he had served on an

undischarged term of imprisonment imposed in state court for burglary. See U.S.S.G.

§§ 5G1.3(b) (if defendant has undischarged prison term for offense which was

relevant conduct and basis for offense-level increase as to instant offense, court shall

Appellate Case: 05-1708 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022558
-2-

adjust instant sentence to reflect time already served on undischarged term if Bureau

of Prisons will not be giving credit, and shall run instant sentence concurrently with

remainder of undischarged term) and 5G1.3(c), p.s. (court may run sentence for

instant offense concurrently with or consecutively to undischarged prison term to

achieve reasonable punishment for instant offense). We disagree. We see no clear

error in the district court’s determination that subsection (c) rather than (b) applied.

See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.2(A)); United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862

(8th Cir. 2005) (application of Guidelines is reviewed de novo and factual findings for

clear error), cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3473 (U.S. Feb. 21, 2006) (No. 05-8557);

United States v. Burch, 406 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir.) (decision whether to apply

§ 5G1.3(b) or (c) is usually fact-sensitive inquiry reviewed for clear error), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 667 (2005).

Finding neither clear factual error nor legal error, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1708 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022558