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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 supervised release. He contends the district

court1

 abused its discretion by selecting a term of thirteen months. We affirm.

Moore pleaded guilty to transporting firearms 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 alleging Moore had committed ten violations.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined Moore had committed three

violations of supervised release. The three violations were considered Grade C

violations under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 7B1.1.

Based on Moore's criminal history, the Grade 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 district 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, Moore asserts the district court failed to

account for the "technical" nature of the Grade C violations and overlooked his

successes while on supervised release, such as being employed, being enrolled in

college, and testing negative for drugs throughout the duration of his supervised

release.

Reviewing the sentence for reasonableness (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 review of the record reflects "the district

court considered the defendant's circumstances, 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 within 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 'improper 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 should 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.

______________________________