# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-1913

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Mallory Giles lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ Submitted: November 12, 2012 Filed: January 28, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In 2007, Mallory Giles was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised rel ease, after pleading guilty to manufacturing and aiding and abetting in manufacturing c ounterfeit currency. In late 2011 and early 2012, Giles allegedly violated the terms of his supervised release by testing positive for drugs and tampering with a urine test. After a revocation hearing, the districtcourt 1 revoked Giles’s supervised releas e and sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment. Giles now appeals the reasona bleness of his sentence, and we affirm.
I. Giles began his term of supervised rel ease in late 2008. On November 1, 2011, a Petition for Warrant or Summons for O ffender Under Supervis ion (“Petition”) was filed alleging that Giles tested positive fo r THC metabolite and amphetamine in June and August of 2011, and also that Giles failed to partic ipate in required substance abuse treatment. On March 28, 2012, anamended Petition was filed containing the additional allegations of atte mpting to tamper with a urin e sample and testing positive for THC metabolite and methamphetamine in March of 2012. At a court appearance on April 5, 2012, Giles denied two of the allegations—noncompliance with substance abuse treatment and using methamphetamine in March of 2012—but admitted all other allegations in the amended Petition. Giles’s advisory Guideline range was 5 to 11 months imprisonment. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , §7B1.4 (Grade C, Criminal History Category III). The distri ct court acknowledged the Guideline range, but departed upwards and se ntenced Giles to 24 months imprisonment, with no term of supervised release to follow. Giles now appeals his sentence.
II. “We review the substantive reasonablen ess of a revocation sentence ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This is true

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-“[r]egardless of whether th e sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. In imposing a revoca tion sentence, “[a] district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives signifi cant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factor s but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Kreitinger , 576 F.3d 500, 504 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). A court may revoke a term of supervisedrelease and impose imprisonment after considering a subset of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Giles argues that the district court abused its discretion by “ignor[ing] the applicable advisory guideline range” and “i ncorrectly balancing the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” We disagree. During se ntencing, the district court specifically acknowledged the advisory Guideline range of 5 to 11 months. The court also considered several of the relevant § 3553(a) factors. For example, the court discussed the nature and circumstances of Giles’s actions, see§ 3553(a)(1), noting the “numerous and repeated violations of the terms of supervision,” and concluded that “the defendant cannot adequately be supervised in a setting less restrictive than prison.” The court also noted the need for deterrence. § 3553(a)(2)(B). We find no error in the district court’s judgment, or its weighing of the relevant section 3553(a) factors. Rather, the court’s determinati on that Giles’s conduct justified a sentence above the Guideline range falls within “a sentencing court’s broad discretion in crafting an individualized sentence.” United States v. Forde , 664 F.3d 1219, 1223 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 2789 (2012).
III. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
-3-