Testo completo
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2871
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
William Snoddy
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2025
Filed: January 28, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
William Snoddy was convicted of manslaughter and possession of a deadly
weapon in Nebraska state court while he was on federal supervised release. The
district court1 revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to 18 months in prison
1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
and 12 months more supervised release, and ordered that the revocation sentence run
consecutively to his state sentence.
Snoddy argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the
federal sentence to run consecutively because it will disqualify him from
participating in Nebraska prison programming. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D)
(instructing the court to consider the need for the sentence “to provide the defendant
with needed educational or vocational training”). We disagree. The district court
considered this argument but weighed it against other facts, including that Snoddy’s
state offense involved possession of a firearm as a felon and resulted in death. It
then exercised its “discretionary authority to order [the] sentence[] to run
consecutively rather than concurrently.” United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790
(8th Cir. 2016); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (Policy Statement) (2009) (amended
Nov. 1, 2025) (“Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of
probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any
sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving.”).
Affirmed.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --