*

 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2184

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Robert Anthony Neuzil, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2010

Filed: December 23, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN and BYE, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL,*

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Neuzil in Iowa called his estranged wife in Minnesota in April 2009,

instructing her to put their children in the basement because he was coming to kill her

and her family. His wife reported the threat, and law-enforcement officers intercepted

Neuzil driving toward Minnesota with a loaded handgun, two knives, three rifles, and

ammunition in the car. A warrant search of Neuzil’s residence uncovered firearms

and explosive devices, including at least one “destructive device.” See U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(3)(B). After indictment, Neuzil pleaded guilty to three counts of
1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

possessing unregistered firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), (e), 5861(d),

and 5871. The government dismissed additional charges of interstate stalking, 18

U.S.C. §§ 2261A(2)(A), (B), and 2261(b)(3), and transmitting a threatening

communication in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 875. At sentencing, the district

court1

 determined an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 70 to 87 months. After

considering the government’s motion for an upward variance, Neuzil’s motion for a

downward variance, and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the

district court sentenced Neuzil to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison for

each weapons count, to be served concurrently. Neuzil appeals, arguing procedural

and substantive sentencing error. We affirm.

Neuzil’s claims of procedural error were not raised in the district court, so our

review is for plain error. United States v. Townsend, 618 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir.

2010); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The contentions are plainly without merit. First, a

district court may properly consider misconduct charged in dismissed counts in

deciding whether to depart or vary upward from the advisory guidelines range. See

United States v. Ademi, 439 F.3d 964, 966-67 (8th Cir. 2006); U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21.

Neuzil did not to object to the Presentence Investigation Report’s description of his

repeated, violent threats against his estranged wife. See United States v. Oaks, 606

F.3d 530, 541-42 (8th Cir. 2010). Second, ample evidence supported the district

court’s finding that Neuzil was “a very dangerous person.” Indeed, his own expert

conceded at sentencing that there were “indications of some risk of dangerousness.”

Third, the argument that the district court did not adequately explain its application

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors is belied by the court’s discussion at

sentencing. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). There

was no procedural error, plain or otherwise. 
-3-

Neuzil’s additional argument that the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence is likewise without merit. We review the reasonableness of the

sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. “[I]t will be the unusual

case when we reverse a district court sentence -- whether within, above, or below the

applicable Guidelines range -- as substantively unreasonable.” United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Here, the court noted that this

was not “a run-of-the-mill simple possession of an unregistered firearm.” Because

Neuzil repeatedly threatened his wife and her family, “has a fascination with firearms

and destructive devices,” “has a tendency to use alcohol to excess,” and failed to show

genuine remorse for his unlawful actions, the court concluded that an upward variance

was needed “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” There was

no abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________