United States v. Ford

340 F. App'x 166

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRAIG FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00032-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 11, 2009

Before KING and DUNCAN Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, David J. Perri, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Craig Ford appeals his sentence following his guilty

plea to being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Ford

argues that the district court procedurally erred in calculating

his guideline sentencing range because Ford was entitled to the

sporting and collection exception pursuant to U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2008).

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under

an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review requires

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive

reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In determining whether a

sentence is procedurally reasonable, this court must assess

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

advisory guideline range. Id. In assessing whether a

sentencing court properly applied the Guidelines, this court

reviews the court’s factual findings for clear error and its

legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d

522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006).

The defendant bears the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a specified

reduction in his guideline sentencing level. See United

States v. Abdi, 342 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2003). Section

2 2K2.1(b)(2) of the Guidelines provides for a sentencing level

reduction when the ammunition in question is possessed by a

disqualified person “solely for lawful sporting purposes or

collection” and the defendant did not otherwise unlawfully use

that ammunition. Given that Ford lacked a hunting license and

told investigating officers that he intended to hunt deer, which

would not be legal to hunt for another seven months, the

district court did not clearly err by concluding that Ford

failed to show that he possessed the ammunition for lawful

sporting purposes. Therefore, the district court did not err in

denying a USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction in Ford’s guideline

sentencing level.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED