United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1948

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

George D. Gordon, Jr., also known as *

George D. Gordon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 19, 2010

Filed: November 24, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George D. Gordon, Jr., pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced by the district court1

 to 90

months’ imprisonment. He appeals his sentence claiming it was unreasonable based

on the parsimony principle and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We

affirm.

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Gordon’s

recommended sentencing range was 41 to 51 months. At the sentencing hearing,

Gordon did not object to the sentencing range, but requested a downward variance

because the majority of his criminal history consists of traffic-related convictions, he

financially cares for his two minor children, and he maintains fairly consistent

employment. The district court declined Gordon’s request. After considering the

§ 3553(a) factors, the district court determined a sentence of 90 months was

appropriate.

We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (8th Cir.

2010). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (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.’” United States v. Holy

Bull, 613 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kane, 552 F.3d 748,

752 (8th Cir. 2009)). “The district court’s responsibility is not to impose a

‘reasonable’ sentence, but [rather] a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to comply with the sentencing goals set forth in the § 3553(a) factors.” 

United States v. Bravo, — F.3d —, 2010 WL 4157182, at *2 (8th Cir. 2010) (per

curiam).

Upon a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied the district court

considered and gave appropriate weight to the relevant § 3553(a) factors and imposed

a sentence which was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the

sentencing goals. The court discussed the nature of the violation, the characteristics

of the defendant, and the sentencing objectives required under § 3553(a). Specifically,

the district court noted Gordon’s criminal history included twenty traffic-related

misdemeanor offenses, thirty-seven other misdemeanor offenses, thirty-eight “other

arrests for which there [was] no disposition,” and nine felony convictions. See United

-2-
States v. Maurstad, 454 F.3d 787, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming a substantial

upward variance based on extensive criminal history); see also United States v. Gray,

377 F. App’x 588, 589-90 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam) (holding

defendant’s extensive criminal history and inability to discontinue criminal activity

provided a reasonable basis for the district court to vary upward from the Guidelines

range). The district court, focusing on adequate deterrence and protecting the public,

concluded Gordon has “absolutely no respect for the law, . . . no ability or intent . . .

to conform [his] conduct to be a law-abiding citizen,” and therefore is not “capable of

living in a free society.” The district court’s decision to vary upward from the

Sentencing Guidelines was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm Gordon’s sentence.

______________________________

-3-