Court Opinion

ID: 9963882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:01:06.608758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:04.532618
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-3375
                       ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                             David Byron Thompson

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: April 19, 2024
                              Filed: April 26, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      David Thompson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
a brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation
sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on a new charge.

       We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a
consecutive sentence upon revocation of Thompson’s supervised release. See United
States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). The
court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing
the relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006)
(revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant
§ 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits
clear error of judgment); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (district court may impose
consecutive or concurrent sentences and shall consider § 3553(a) factors).
Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

                        ______________________________

                                          -2-