United States v. Alexisus Mosby, 664 F. App'x 600

Mosby was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 108 months plus supervised release; later placed in a halfway house to finish his term.
After release from BOP custody, a probation officer filed a supervised-release petition alleging (1) false employment report/termination, (2) failure to maintain contact/unknown whereabouts, (3) positive cocaine test, and (4) failure to report for urinalysis; a domestic-assault charge was pending from his time in the halfway house.
Mosby absconded, was arrested in North Dakota in a stolen car, and admitted to the alleged violations except missing one drug test; the government proceeded on the admitted violations.
The Guidelines range for revocation was 6–12 months; the district court revoked supervised release and imposed a 12-month within-Guidelines sentence, stating it had considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
At sentencing the court said it would not rely on the search-warrant firearm or unproven domestic-assault charge, but emphasized Mosby’s pattern of repeated supervision violations shortly after release and concluded he posed a danger to the public.

Issue	Mosby’s Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether the 12‑month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court gave undue weight to an arrest (domestic assault) and discovery of a firearm	Court abused discretion by relying on the arrest and firearm (and by treating them as aggravating)	Sentence within Guidelines; court did not base sentence on the firearm or unproven assault charge and considered proper §3553(a) factors	Affirmed — court did not consider the firearm or rely on the untried assault; sentence reasonable
Whether the court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors (family support; minor nature of violations)	Court failed to afford adequate weight to mitigation and thus abused discretion	Court considered mitigation; counsel raised those points; district court permissibly weighed factors against Mosby’s long history of violations	Affirmed — district court did not err in weighing mitigation against repeated, proximate violations

United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2011) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines revocation sentences)
United States v. O’Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (review posture when no procedural error is asserted)
United States v. Boelter, 806 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2015) (substantive-reasonableness framework for weighing sentencing factors)
United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (defining substantive-unreasonableness standards)
United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (revocation sentences may not be based on disputed, unproven allegations)
United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2015) (presumption that district court considered mitigation presented by counsel)
United States v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussion of district court’s consideration of presented mitigating evidence)