Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01637/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01637-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy J. Ford
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1637

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Billy J. Ford, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 21, 2008

 Filed: February 4, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy J. Ford appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). Ford argues on appeal that his sentence, at the top of his undisputed

advisory Guidelines range, is unreasonable because the district court did not expressly

address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, because the court overemphasized his

criminal history, and because the court’s comments at sentencing were not specific to

him or his crime. 

Appellate Case: 07-1637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398458
-2-

In determining Ford’s sentence, the district court was not required expressly to

address the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Gillispie, 487 F.3d 1158,

1162-63 (8th Cir. 2007) (mechanical recitation of factors is not required). The record

demonstrates that the court had before it ample information relevant to the section

3553(a) factors, including Ford’s extensive criminal history and record of misconduct

in prison. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468-69 (2007) (inferring

district court’s reasoning from context and examination of whole record). Nothing in

the record suggests that the district court overemphasized Ford’s criminal history or

otherwise misapplied the section 3553(a) factors, and the court’s comments at

sentencing were in direct response to Ford’s statements in allocution and were not

improper. We therefore conclude that Ford’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006)

(sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); see also Rita, 127

S. Ct. at 2462 (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398458