Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02164/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dana L. Ford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri, to whom the motion was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

2

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2164

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Dana L. Ford, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2006

Filed: March 31, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his

home pursuant to a search warrant, a jury found Dana L. Ford guilty of being a felon

in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court2

Appellate Case: 05-2164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027627
-2-

sentenced him to thirty months in prison and three years of supervised release. On

appeal, he challenges the denial of his motion to suppress and his request for an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

We first conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ford’s

suppression motion because the information within the four corners of the affidavit

submitted in support of the search warrant application was sufficient to establish

probable cause. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005).

We also conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ford a reduction at

sentencing for acceptance of responsibility because he challenged his factual guilt at

trial. See United States v. Yirkovsky, 338 F.3d 936, 941 (8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027627