Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-3233 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Floyd Frank Ezell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: December 15, 2014 Filed: December 22, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Floyd Ezell directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 im
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-3233 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Floyd Frank Ezell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: December 15, 2014 Filed: December 22, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Floyd Ezell directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imp..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-3233
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Floyd Frank Ezell
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2014
Filed: December 22, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Floyd Ezell directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed on him
after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Ezell argues that the court abused
1
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
its discretion in failing to credit against his 4-month revocation sentence the time that he
spent in state custody on a drug charge. This challenge is without merit. See United
States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992) (18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) does not
authorize district court, at sentencing, to compute credit for time served). To the
extent Ezell’s argument encompasses a claim that the revocation sentence imposed
is unreasonable, we conclude after careful review that the below-Guidelines-range
sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th
Cir. 2009) (appellate review of revocation sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-