1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chie f 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 Stevie Glenn Howard, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant.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 bei ng a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory maximum se ntence of 120 months imprisonment, and Howard appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.-2- Howard was indicted for being a fel on in possession of a firearm after local authorities stopped his pickup truck in re sponse to a 911 domestic disturbance call. Police discovered shotgun shells in the vehi cle 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 calcu lated a total offense level of 21 and criminal history category VI with a resu lting 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 partie s that it was considering an upward variance to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 m onths. 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 se ntencing 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 erro r 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 upwar d variance was based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), "the defendant's significan t and violent criminal history, the probability of the defendant committing fu ture 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 convi ctions, and the fact that Ho ward 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 reasonabl eness." United States v. Marshall , 411 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________