United States of America v. Landein Charles Craddock

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2262
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Landein Charles Craddock
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: November 15, 2016
Filed: November 18, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to robbery and firearm charges, Landein Charles
Craddock appeals the district court’s 1 order revoking his supervised release and
1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

sentencing him to a total term of 46 months in prison, to run consecutively to a
15-year sentence imposed in the District of Kansas. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Craddock, as the
court imposed the within-Guidelines sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, and acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under
substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider
relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Petreikis, 551
F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness
to revocation sentence within Guidelines range); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (any term of
imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release shall be ordered to be
served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that defendant is serving,
whether or not sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from conduct that is
basis of revocation); 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 sound discretion of district court).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --