US v. Quindell Ford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00219-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998673625].. [10-5153]

Appeal: 10-5153

Document: 69

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
QUINDELL FORD, a/k/a Nephew,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00219-RDB-1)

Submitted:

September 7, 2011

Decided:

September 9, 2011

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haneef L. Omar, LAW OFFICES OF HANEEF L. OMAR, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Michael J. Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5153

Document: 69

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Quindell Ford appeals his 336-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2006), and one count of
possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(i),
(ii) (2006).
procedurally

On appeal, Ford argues that the district court
erred

in

determining

his

sentence.

Finding

no

error, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a

deferential

abuse

of

discretion

standard.

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of
review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of
sentencing error in district court “[b]y drawing arguments from
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2006)] for a sentence different than the
one ultimately imposed”).
for

significant

procedural

We begin by reviewing the sentence
error,

including

such

errors

as

“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2

Appeal: 10-5153

Document: 69

On

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

appeal,

Ford

argues

Page: 3 of 3

that

the

district

court

procedurally erred by (1) granting a one-level departure in his
criminal history category but subsequently varying upward; (2)
failing

to

adequately

explain

its

upward

variance;

and

(3)

creating an unwarranted sentencing disparity between Ford and a
codefendant.

We hold that the district court reasonably based

its upward variance, subsequent to the downward departure, on a
variety

of

§ 3553(a)

decision

to

do

so.

factors
Further,

and

adequately

because

Ford’s

explained

its

codefendant

was

convicted and sentenced on different counts of the indictment,
we hold that a comparison of the two sentences was unnecessary.
We thus discern no procedural error, let alone significant error
requiring reversal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3