Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02640/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02640-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Shannon D. West
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2640

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Shannon D. West, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2006

Filed: September 18, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shannon West challenges the 41-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For reversal, West argues his sentence is

unreasonable, because (1) the district court did not grant credit against the sentence

for time he served while state charges against him were pending, (2) the court did not

run his sentence concurrently with his state probation-revocation sentence, and (3)

Appellate Case: 05-2640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090250
-2-

in making that decision the court clearly erred in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors.

West’s arguments are unavailing. The record shows that the district court

carefully considered the relevant circumstances in this case and other appropriate

sentencing factors, therefore, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion or

imposed an unreasonable sentence when it refused to run West’s sentence

concurrently with his undischarged state sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), p.s. &

comment. (n.3(A) & (C)); United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 940 (8th Cir. 2006)

(§ 5G1.3(c) provides court wide discretion to order federal sentence to run

consecutively to undischarged state sentence); cf. United States v. Atteberry, 447

F.3d 562, 564 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that principal issue for appellate review is

whether consecutive sentence is unreasonable, and holding that consecutive sentence

was not unreasonable given defendant’s crimes and district court’s explanation that

defendant’s state and federal convictions were separate, that defendant required

incarceration following discharge of his state sentence, and that total combined

sentence was appropriate). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090250