1

 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2178

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa. 

Stevie Glenn Howard, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2006

Filed: November 17, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stevie Glenn Howard pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him

to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months imprisonment, and Howard appeals,

challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
-2-

Howard was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm after local

authorities stopped his pickup truck in response to a 911 domestic disturbance call.

Police discovered shotgun shells in the vehicle and subsequently recovered a shotgun

from a closet in Howard's residence. Howard admitted knowing possession of the

firearm as a felon and pled guilty to the charge. 

At sentencing, the district court calculated a total offense level of 21 and

criminal history category VI with a resulting advisory guideline range of 77 to 96

months. The government argued for an upward departure based on the

underrepresentation of defendant's criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism,

and the district court informed the parties that it was considering an upward variance

to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months. The court then denied the motion

for an upward departure and instead varied upward from the suggested guideline range

to impose a 120 month sentence. Howard appeals, arguing that the court abused its

discretion when it varied upward and that the extent of the variance resulted in an

unreasonable sentence. 

We review the decision to vary from the suggested guideline range and the

resulting sentence for reasonableness, United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050,

1055 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352, 356 (8th Cir. 2006), which

is a standard "akin to our traditional review for abuse of discretion." United States v.

Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479, 481 (8th Cir. 2000). A sentencing court abuses its discretion

if it "fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight,

gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the

appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors."

United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The district court stated that its upward variance was based on the factors in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), "the defendant's significant and violent criminal history, the

probability of the defendant committing future crimes, and the defendant's child
-3-

support arrearage." Given Howard's expansive criminal record, which includes 14

convictions for which he did not receive criminal history points, 3 prior felony

convictions, and 7 assault convictions, and the fact that Howard was in arrears in child

support payments in the amount of $21,529 at the time of sentencing, we conclude

that the district court's upward variance and resulting 120 month sentence do not

traverse "the boundaries of reasonableness." United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891,

895 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________