US v. Craig Ford

Filing 920090811

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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 Circuit Judge.

DUNCAN

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 This review requires

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

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. sentence is procedurally Id. In determining whether a this court must assess

reasonable,

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory sentencing guideline court range. Id. applied In the assessing Guidelines, whether this a

properly

court

reviews the court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006). The defendant bears the burden of proving by a United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d

preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a specified reduction in his guideline sentencing level. See United Section

States v. Abdi, 342 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2003). 2

2K2.1(b)(2) of the Guidelines provides for a sentencing level reduction when the ammunition "solely in question lawful is possessed by a or

disqualified

person

for

sporting

purposes

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 did that to not he hunt for another by seven months, that for the Ford

district failed to

court show

clearly

err

concluding ammunition

possessed

the

lawful

sporting purposes. denying a USSG §

Therefore, the district court did not err in 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

3