United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2557

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James Nelson

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska

____________

Submitted: December 10, 2018

Filed: January 16, 2019

[Unpublished]

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In October 2012, James Nelson was convicted for failing to register as a sex

offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). He was sentenced to 24 months’

imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Nelson

entered into supervision in March 2015. In October 2016, a petition seeking the

revocation of Nelson’s supervised released was filed, citing various violations
including: multiple failures to report to his probation officer, failure to participate in

any substance abuse treatment programs, several missed and failed urinalyses, and

failure to register his new address after being evicted. 

The district court found that Nelson had committed a grade B violation and

1

was in criminal history category V, which yielded an advisory guidelines range of

18–24 months. Nelson requested a continuance of the sentencing hearing claiming

that recent circumstantial changes, such as access to stable housing and health care

greatly changed the footing of the case. The district court denied the motion for a

continuance, revoked Nelson’s supervision and sentenced him to serve 12 months’

custody followed by 24 months of supervised release. Nelson appeals both the

sentence and the denial of his motion to continue, arguing that the district court failed

to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by failing to appropriately weigh and

consider his prior military service, unstable life conditions, and health issues. 

This court reviews a sentence imposed for violation of supervised release for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Jasper, 338 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2003). 

When no procedural error has been alleged, we review the substantive reasonableness

of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Shepard, 657 F.3d 682, 685

(8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc).

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable sentence. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461–62 (reviewing reasonableness

of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.

McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (“Where . . . a district court has

varied below the Guidelines range, it is ‘nearly inconceivable’ that the court abused

its discretion in not varying downward still further.” (citation omitted)). The district

The Honorable Judge Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.

-2-
court considered all relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Nelson’s history

and characteristics, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the

protection of the public, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The district

court issued the below-guideline-range termofimprisonment based on Nelson’s postrelease conduct including his failure to follow the terms of his supervised release. 

Nelson’s long-termaddiction to controlled substances,which he continued to struggle

with at the time of sentencing, was also a significant factor in the sentencing court’s

analysis in the revocation and re-sentencing. 

The standard of review for continuances is similarly deferential. See United

States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2003) (“We review a denial of a

motion for continuance for abuse of discretion.”); see also United States v. Cotroneo,

89 F.3d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Continuances generally are not favored and should

be granted only when the party requesting one has shown a compelling reason.”

(citation omitted)). The district court considered the relevant factors, including new

medication which Nelson reported made himfeel differently, and found the requested

continuance to be unwarranted. We find no abuse of discretion in this determination.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-