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. 10-2043

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. James Frank Moore, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 13, 2010 Filed: December 27, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Frank Moore appeals the thirteen-month term of imprisonment he received after violating the terms of his supe rvised release. He contends the district court 1 abused its discretion by selecting a term of thirteen months. We affirm. Moore pleaded guilty to transporting fi rearms unlawfully and was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Eight months after he began serving his term of supervised release, the government-2- moved to revoke supervised release a lleging Moore had committed ten violations. After an evidentiary hearing, the districtcourt determined M oore had committed three violations of supervised release. The three violations were considered Grade C violations under United States Sentenci ng Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 7B1.1. Based on Moore's criminal history, the Gr ade C violations triggered an advisory guidelines range of 7-13 months pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. After "considering all of the statutory factors" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court stated a "concern[] about Mr. Moore's lack of progress while on supervised release, his failure to comply with the directives of the probation officer and to participate in the rehabilitation programs and also his contacts with law enforcement." The district court then chose to "impose a guideline sentence" of thirteen months.

Moore contends the distri ct court erred by not fully considering all of the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and abused its discretion by imposing an excessive and unreasonable sentence. More specifically, M oore asserts the district court failed to account for the "technical" nature of the Grade C violations and overlooked his successes while on supervised release, su ch as being employed, being enrolled in college, and testing negative for drugs throughout the duration of his supervised release. Reviewing the sentence for reasonablene ss (a standard akin to abuse of discretion), United States v. Gallegos , 480 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2007), we find no grounds for reversing Moore's sentence. Our re view of the record reflects "the district court considered the defendant's circumstan ces, the § 3553(a) factors, and the advisory guidelines range." United States v. Swehla , 442 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court then chose a sentence with in the advisory guidelines range, which is presumed reasonable. Id. In addition, "[n]othing in the record suggests that the district court based its sentence on an 'impr oper or irrelevant factor' or neglected 'to-3- consider a relevant factor.' " United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)). Other than his claim the district court shoul d have imposed a lesser sentence based on certain aspects of his history, characteristics, and the circumstances surrounding the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), Moore "offer[s] nothing to indicate that his sentence offends the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________