1

The Honorable Laurie Smith-Camp, United 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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 conspiracy 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 court1

 imposed a 151-month sentence. On appeal,

Jordan argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a base offense 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 adopted the PSR's calculations and denied the

motion for downward departure. The district 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 not greater 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 court's 151-month sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the court incorrectly concluded his numerous offenses for

driving on revoked and suspended licenses represented serious offenses and militated

against a below-Guidelines sentence.

We review the district court's sentence 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 committed no significant procedural error,

such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, 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 deviation from the Guidelines range.

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the sentence is procedurally sound, we review "the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence 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 considered those factors. See United States v. Hernandez, 518

F.3d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, "when 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 sentence (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 considered 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 reasonableness accorded this sentence.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________