1 The Honorable Laurie Smith-Camp, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2673

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District of * Nebraska. Joseph T. Jordan, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 14, 2009 Filed: December 18, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joseph T. Jordan pleaded guilty to cons piracy to possess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. At sentencing, the district court 1 imposed a 151-month sentence. On appeal, Jordan argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The presentence investigation report (PSR ) calculated a baseoffense level of 29 and assigned a criminal history category of VI, for a Guidelines sentencing range-2- of 151–188 months imprisonment. Jordan moved for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.3(b), arguing category VI overrepresented his criminal history. The district court a dopted the PSR's calculations and denied the motion for downward departure. The distri ct court noted it had taken the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors into account and concluded a low-end Guidelines sentence of 151 months was sufficient, but notgreater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing. Jordan does not appeal the district court's denial of his motion for downward departure, but argues the c ourt's 151-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court incorrectly concluded his numerous offenses for driving on revoked and suspended licenses re presented serious offenses and militated against a below-Guidelines sentence.

We review the district court's senten ce for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , – U.S. – , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Austad , 519 F.3d 431, 434 (8th Cir. 2008). We first

ensure that the district court co mmitted no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as ma ndatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviati on from the Guidelines range.
Gall , 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the sentence is procedurally sound, we review "the substantive reasonableness of the senten ce imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard." Id. Jordan does not argue the district court committed a significant procedural error. Thus, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

"A sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal ." United States v. Robinson , 516 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court noted its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and-3- it is clear that the court cons idered those factors. See United States v. Hernandez , 518 F.3d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, "whe n a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation." Rita v. United States , – U.S. – , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). We may appropriately conclude "the judge rests his decision upon the Commission's own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper senten ce (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that the case before him is typical." Id.

We are satisfied the district court consid ered all the relevant sentencing factors. The record demonstrates it appropriately considered, among other relevant characteristics, Jordan's lengthy criminal history and determined a within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. We find nothing in Jordan's arguments to overcome the presumption of reasonablen ess accorded this sentence.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________