United States v. David Thompson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 26, 2024
Docket23-3375
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. David Thompson (United States v. David Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. David Thompson, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

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Submitted: April 19, 2024 Filed: April 26, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Duane Larison
432 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Tonney Valure
835 F.3d 789 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. David Thompson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-thompson-ca8-2024.