Skip to main content


United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Timothy MOORE, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-1226

Decided: October 28, 2019

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. Benecia Betton Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee Timothy Moore, Pro Se


Timothy Moore appeals after he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a prison term at the low end of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.


1.   The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

Docket No: No. 19-1226

Decided: October 28, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard