Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio WATKINS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-30
Citations: 297 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 07-2937
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio WATKINS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio WATKINS, Appellant.
No. 07-2937.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2008.
Filed: Oct. 30, 2008.
Patrick J. Reinert, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.
Daniel O’Brien, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Watkins appeals the sentence the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we affirm.
We first conclude that Watkins's sentence is not unreasonable because it was within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and it resulted from the court's consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a). See United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).
We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Watkins's revocation sentence run consecutively to his state sentences. See United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir.1996) (decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is committed to court's sound discretion); see also U.S.S.G. § 7331.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment defendant is serving).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did nothing improper in declining to recommend Watkins's placement in a medical facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (Bureau of Prisons shall designate place of prisoner's imprisonment).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.