United States v. Timothy Moore, No. 19-1226 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court correctly calculated defendant's criminal history score as criminal history points are assessed on the basis of the sentence pronounced, not the time actually served, so long as a defendant served some period of imprisonment; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 25, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1226 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Timothy Moore, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: October 14, 2019 Filed: October 28, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Moore appeals after he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term at the low end 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she seeks permission to withdraw. Counsel argues that the district court erred in calculating Moore’s criminal history score by assessing three criminal history points based on a prior conviction for which he had been sentenced to three years in prison, but had served only 60 days. Counsel also argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated Moore’s criminal history score, as he was sentenced to 3 years in prison for the prior conviction at issue. Criminal history points are based on the sentence pronounced, not the length of time actually served, as long as the defendant actually served some period of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a); 4A1.2, comment. (n.2). We further conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See generally United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by discussing Moore’s criminal history and inability to conform his conduct to the law. See United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008). In addition, we presume that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
