United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2950

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Scott Carroll

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

Submitted: June 10, 2019

Filed: July 12, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Justin Scott Carroll pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Atsentencing, the
district court1

calculated an advisory range under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment. Carroll requested a downward

variance based on several mitigating factors, including that he was only 22 years old

and that his current offense involved no violence. The district court noted that

despite his young age, Carroll had “already achieved a category V criminal history,”

including previous convictions for violent crimes and crimes involving guns. It

imposed a 66-month term of imprisonment. Carroll appeals, challenging the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of

discretion. United States v. McKinzie, 557 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2009). “[A]n

abuse of discretion occurs if the district court (1) fails to consider a relevant factor

that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in

weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” Id. (cleaned up). Where,

as here, the sentence imposed “is outside the Guidelines range, the court may . . .

consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s

decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the

variance.” United States v. Moralez, 808 F.3d 362, 368 (8th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

Carroll has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. Carroll

argues that the district court abused its discretion by placing too much weight on his

criminal history, which had already been taken into account when calculating his

Guidelines range. But “a court may consider a defendant’s criminal history even if

that history is included in the defendant’s criminal history category.” United States

v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 727 (8th Cir. 2009). And here, the district court focused on

aspects of Carroll’s criminal history that were not accounted for in the calculation of

1The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
his Guidelines criminal history score: the fact that he had amassed several factually

similar felony convictions within a relatively short period of time and at a young age. 

We see no abuse of discretion in how the district court considered and weighed the

sentencing factors in this case. 

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-