1

The Honorable John R. Gibson retired from service on this court January 26,

2011. This opinion is consistent with his vote at the panel’s conference on May 12,

2010. See also 8th Cir. Rule 47E.

2

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2972

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Paul Robert Jones, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2010

Filed: March 1, 2011

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON1

 and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul Robert Jones pled guilty to one count of assault resulting in serious bodily

injury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1151 and 1153(a). Following a hearing,

the district court2

 sentenced Jones to 82 months imprisonment followed by 3 years

supervised release. Jones appeals his sentence, arguing the district court erred in
-2-

assessing his criminal history because the district court gave too much weight to his

tribal court convictions. We affirm Jones’s sentence. 

The charges against Jones arose from a November 26, 2008 stabbing within the

Red Lake Indian Reservation. Jones climbed through his estranged wife’s bedroom

window and brutally slashed and stabbed her with a serrated kitchen knife, causing

“severe lacerations on her face, right breast, right hand, and left arm which required

sutures and surgery to repair.” Following Jones’s guilty plea, the United States

Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR) for the district

court. The PSR calculated Jones’s advisory range under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) as 51 to 63 months imprisonment.

 Jones asked for a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range, asserting he

accepted responsibility for the attack, was remorseful, and was undergoing treatment

for mental health and chemical dependency problems. The government sought an

upward departure, requesting a 100 month sentence based on (1) the psychological

harm to the victim, (2) the unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading conduct, and

(3) because Jones’s criminal history category did not adequately reflect the

seriousness of his past criminal conduct and the likelihood of recidivism. See

U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.3, 5K2.8, 4A1.3.

 At sentencing, the district court found the PSR’s criminal history category of

III was not an adequate reflection of Jones’s criminal history due to uncounted tribal

convictions. See § 4A1.2(i). The court also noted Jones had drug and alcohol

problems, mental health issues, and a history of domestic assault. Based on these

circumstances, the court found Jones had a “very significant propensity to reoffend,”

and then sentenced Jones to 82 months imprisonment. 

 On appeal, Jones argues the district court erred by giving too much

consideration to unscored tribal convictions noted in his PSR. Jones also argues the
-3-

district court abused its discretion by failing to consider his individual characteristics

such as his remorse, treatment for alcohol and mental health problems, and

commitment to sobriety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

 We review sentences under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “In reviewing

[Jones’s] sentence, we first ensure that the district court did not commit significant

procedural error, such as an improper calculation of the advisory sentencing

guidelines range; then, absent significant procedural error, we review the sentence for

substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Jenkins, 578 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir.

2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1550 (2010); Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (describing

means of procedural error). 

Here, the district court did not procedurally err in considering Jones’s tribal

convictions. The Guidelines specifically permit a district court to consider tribal court

convictions for the purpose of determining the adequacy of a defendant’s criminal

history, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A), and this court has consistently approved tribal

convictions as a permissible basis for departing upward from the advisory Guidelines

range. See, e.g., United States v. Cook, 615 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2010); United

States v. Harlan, 368 F.3d 870, 874-75 (8th Cir. 2004). We have reviewed the record

below and are satisfied that under the totality of the circumstances the district court

considered all relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and imposed a

substantively reasonable sentence. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. 

We affirm the judgment. 

______________________________