United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 19-2328

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Emanuel Moore, Jr.

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ 

Submitted: October 19, 2020

 Filed: December 16, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Emanuel Moore was a participant, with co-defendants, in an 

expansive drug conspiracy which spanned three states and involved cocaine, 

marijuana, and heroin. Moore pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture, 

distribute, and possess with intent to distribute at least 100 grams of a mixture and 
-2-

substance containing heroin and at least 100 kilograms of a mixture and substance 

containing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. 

After calculating the United States Sentencing Guidelines base offense level, 

applying various offense level enhancements as well as reducing the offense level 

for acceptance of responsibility, and applying the applicable criminal history score, 

the Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months imprisonment. At sentencing, Moore 

requested a downward variance to 150 to 160 months. After considering the 

arguments of the parties the district court1 varied downward and sentenced Moore 

to 216 months imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. 

Moore appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Moore asserts on appeal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, 

contending that the downward variance granted by the district court is insufficient. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States 

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court was 

required to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and “[a] 

district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it 

fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear 

error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 

440 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 

2009)). Further, where, as here “the district court has sentenced a defendant below 

the advisory guidelines range, ‘it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its 

discretion in not varying downward still further.’” United States v. McKanry, 628 

F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 

(8th Cir. 2009)).

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
-3-

Moore makes the single claim on appeal that the district court considered an 

improper factor by considering the heroin aspect of this drug conspiracy in its 

sentencing decision. This is an untenable position. The district court is permitted to 

consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). 

Moore offered no evidence at sentencing and did not object to the Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSR), which attributed a considerable amount of heroin to him 

and he understood that the unobjected-to portions of the PSR would be considered 

as admitted. “A fact in a PSR to which the defendant has not specifically objected 

is a fact admitted by the defendant.” United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330, 

334 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Further, he agreed that the district court could 

consider all the evidence it had received in the cases of Moore’s co-defendants, 

including the evidence of the heroin possession and distribution aspect of the drug 

conspiracy. We conclude that the district court did not consider an improper factor 

and committed no abuse of discretion in sentencing Moore. See United States v. 

Woods, 603 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming sentence where district court 

considered drug quantity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________