[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11960 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 14, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-00228-WS-B-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NASHON AKKUR BARNES,
a.k.a. Honey Comb,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(December 14, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nashon Akkur Barnes appeals his 36-month sentence imposed following the
revocation of his federal supervised release after state-court convictions for
burglary and attempted murder.1 Barnes asserts the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence because the sentence is based on Barnes’s state-court
convictions and on the “premise” that the district court could reduce the sentence
if Barnes successfully appeals his state-court convictions. Barnes further contends
he lacks a remedy to challenge his sentence in the event his convictions are
overturned because 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) imposes a one-year limitation on a motion
to vacate an unlawful sentence and his state-court appeal is likely to last three to
five years. After review, we affirm Barnes’s sentence.2
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Barnes to 36
months’ imprisonment upon the revocation of his supervised release. Barnes
identifies no procedural error committed by the district court, which expressly
considered the evidence and argument presented by the parties, Chapter VII of the
1
Barnes was sentenced to life for his state-court convictions. The district court ordered
Barnes’s supervised release revocation sentence to run consecutively to his life sentence.
2
We review for reasonableness a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the
reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
2
Guidelines, the nature and severity of Barnes’s offenses, and the other 3553(a)
factors.
Additionally, Barnes’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Barnes suffers
no impediment to relief in the event his state-court convictions are overturned
because he would have one year to move under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his
federal sentence. See United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999)
(“[A] district court may reopen and reduce a federal sentence once a federal
defendant has, in state court, successfully attacked a prior state conviction,
previously used in enhancing the federal sentence.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83
F.3d 357, 364 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that, if the defendant’s state-court
conviction “is reversed, he may seek appropriate modification of his supervised
release revocation sentence at that time”). Accordingly, we affirm Barnes’s
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3