Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03186/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Sean Michael Ward
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3186

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sean Michael Ward

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: May 11, 2015

Filed: May 20, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Sean Michael Ward pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Ward requested a downward variance

Appellate Case: 14-3186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Entry ID: 4276945 
to 60 months from the applicable 77 to 96 months advisory guideline range. The

district court sentenced Ward to 96 months, and he appeals his sentence. 1

On January 26, 2013 law enforcement officers searched Ward’s apartment

while investigating a stabbing report. A .22 handgun was found under Ward’s

bathroom sink and corresponding ammunition in his trash can. Subsequently he was

arrested in July 2013 and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). He pled guilty on May 19, 2014. 

At sentencing, the district court credited him for acceptance of responsibility

and calculated his advisory guideline range to be 77 to 96 months. Ward requested

a downward variance to 60 months while the government asked for a sentence of 77

months, the lower end of the guideline range. In considering the relevant 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) mitigating factors, the district court recognized Ward’s difficult

upbringing and mental health challenges, but also took note of his “history of

violence” combined with “the proximity of this crime to the last crime and the serious

nature of this particular crime” before imposing a sentence of 96 months. 

We review a district court's sentence under the deferential abuse of discretion

standard. United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1045 (8th Cir. 2011). We first

examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, and

then consider whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.

Frausto, 636 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2011). “Procedural errors include 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 adequately to explain the chosen sentence. Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). Ward failed to raise an objection to alleged

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Entry ID: 4276945 
procedural error before the district court, and so our review of any procedural error

is for plain error. United States v. Means, 365 Fed. App'x 720, 722–23 (8th Cir.

2010). When the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory guideline

range, we may assume it is substantively reasonable, subject to rebuttal by the

defendant. United States v. Beasley, 688 F.3d 523, 535 (8th Cir. 2012).

Ward claims the district court did not properly weigh the § 3553(a) factors

when imposing an unreasonable sentence. After our review we are satisfied that the

district court considered the relevant factors before giving the nature of Ward’s

offense and his criminal history greater weight than his difficult upbringing, history

of drug addiction, and mental health troubles. Given the wide discretion a district

court has in sentencing and the deferential standard of review, we cannot say that the

district court plainly erred in its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors or abused its

discretion in imposing Ward's sentence. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3186 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Entry ID: 4276945