United States Eighth Circuit

Defendant's sentence for using interstate communications to transmit a threat is affirmed where: 1) U.S.S.G. section 5G1.2 was not controlling, but advisory, and the district court had discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences under 18 U.S.C. section 3584; and 2) the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors and, given the evidence, the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences was not an abuse of discretion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/02/2010
• Published 04/02/2010

Judges

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel