violations that the Guidelines classify as Grade C, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.”) § 7B 1.4(a), p.s., have not received prison terms following supervised release revocations. Mr. Manning's comparatively short sentence was imposed on March 31, 2008. Mr. Manning had been detained on the supervised release revocation charge for more than two months before sentencing. At this juncture, although the clock has not run on the ten months, if Mr. Manning was given the statutorily prescribed credit for that time, see, e.g., Weekes v. Fleming, 301 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir.2002) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)), in all likelihood he has completed his sentence. Indeed, publicly available Bureau of Prison records indicate that Mr. Manning completed his prison 883-84 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). And, even if there were some very slight room
holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions