United States v. James Moore , 405 F. App'x 86 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2043
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    James Frank Moore,                      *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 13, 2010
    Filed: December 27, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Frank Moore appeals the thirteen-month term of imprisonment he
    received after violating the terms of his supervised release. He contends the district
    court1 abused its discretion by selecting a term of thirteen months. We affirm.
    Moore pleaded guilty to transporting firearms unlawfully and was sentenced to
    twenty-four months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
    Eight months after he began serving his term of supervised release, the government
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    moved to revoke supervised release alleging Moore had committed ten violations.
    After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined Moore had committed three
    violations of supervised release. The three violations were considered Grade C
    violations under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 7B1.1.
    Based on Moore's criminal history, the Grade C violations triggered an advisory
    guidelines range of 7-13 months pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4.
    After "considering all of the statutory factors" under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), the
    district court stated a "concern[] about Mr. Moore's lack of progress while on
    supervised release, his failure to comply with the directives of the probation officer
    and to participate in the rehabilitation programs and also his contacts with law
    enforcement." The district court then chose to "impose a guideline sentence" of
    thirteen months.
    Moore contends the district court erred by not fully considering all of the
    factors set forth in § 3553(a) and abused its discretion by imposing an excessive and
    unreasonable sentence. More specifically, Moore asserts the district court failed to
    account for the "technical" nature of the Grade C violations and overlooked his
    successes while on supervised release, such as being employed, being enrolled in
    college, and testing negative for drugs throughout the duration of his supervised
    release.
    Reviewing the sentence for reasonableness (a standard akin to abuse of
    discretion), United States v. Gallegos, 
    480 F.3d 856
    , 858 (8th Cir. 2007), we find no
    grounds for reversing Moore's sentence. Our review of the record reflects "the district
    court considered the defendant's circumstances, the § 3553(a) factors, and the advisory
    guidelines range." United States v. Swehla, 
    442 F.3d 1143
    , 1145 (8th Cir. 2006). The
    district court then chose a sentence within the advisory guidelines range, which is
    presumed reasonable. 
    Id.
     In addition, "[n]othing in the record suggests that the
    district court based its sentence on an 'improper or irrelevant factor' or neglected 'to
    -2-
    consider a relevant factor.'" United States v. Lincoln, 
    413 F.3d 716
    , 717 (8th Cir.
    2005) (quoting United States v. Haack, 
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)). Other
    than his claim the district court should have imposed a lesser sentence based on
    certain aspects of his history, characteristics, and the circumstances surrounding the
    offense, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(1), Moore "offer[s] nothing to indicate that his sentence
    offends the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Mykytiuk, 
    415 F.3d 606
    , 608 (7th Cir.
    2005).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2043

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 86

Judges: Loken, Arnold, Bye

Filed Date: 12/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024