United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4053

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jamie L. Ballard

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: September 18, 2017

 Filed: October 5, 2017

[Published]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Jamie L. Ballard challenges the substantive reasonableness of the 121-month

sentence the district court1

 imposed after she pleaded guilty to possession with intent

to distribute methamphetamine. We affirm.

After Ballard entered her guilty plea, the United States Probation Office

prepared a presentence report that calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121 to

151 months in prison. At the sentencing hearing, Ballard sought a downward

variance. She acknowledged that she had numerous prior misdemeanor convictions,

but emphasized that her most recent convictions were for non-violent offenses and

that she was addicted to drugs. She also pointed out that she had never served prison

time, that the amount of methamphetamine she had possessed was only slightly above

the threshold for a two-level increase to her Guidelines offense level, that she had

children, that she was attending school at the time of her arrest, and that she had a

history of consistent employment. The government noted, among other things, that

Ballard had tested positive for methamphetamine several times since her initial arrest,

and that, as result, the magistrate judge had revoked her pre-trial release. 

The district court sentenced Ballard to 121 months in prison, followed by 3

years of supervised release. The court noted that Ballard—who was only 31 years old

at the time she was sentenced—had no fewer than 31 prior convictions, and reasoned

that, although they were all misdemeanors, the convictions reflected a continued

course of criminal conduct and a lack of effort on Ballard’s part to stop using drugs

or to otherwise rehabilitate herself. The district court referenced 18 U.S.C. § 3553,

and explained that it was imposing a 121-month sentence “for punishment, deterrence

and to serve the ends of justice, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct by

[Ballard], to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and

to provide just punishment for the offense.”

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
On appeal, Ballard contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

In her view, the district court failed to consider mitigating factors that should have

received considerable weight, and committed a clear error in judgment in weighing

the § 3553(a) factors.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard, considering the totality of the circumstances. United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “‘A district court

abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have

received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors

commits a clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046, 1050

(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461). 

We disagree with Ballard’s assertion that the district court failed to consider

important mitigating factors. District courts “need not specifically respond to every

argument made by the defendant or mechanically recite each § 3553(a) factor.” 

United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

Ballard’s counsel clearly articulated several mitigating factors at the sentencing

hearing, and the sentencing record reflects that the district court considered those

factors but gave them little weight relative to other § 3553(a) factors.

The district court also did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the

§ 3553(a) factors. “The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors

in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an

appropriate sentence.” United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Here, the district court did not clearly err by giving great weight to Ballard’s extensive

history of criminal conduct, or by giving little weight to her history of drug addiction

and the fact that her previous offenses were all misdemeanors. See United States v.

Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1180 (8th Cir. 2011) (“A district court’s choice to assign

-3-
relatively greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than to the

mitigating personal characteristics of the defendant is well within its wide latitude in

weighing relevant factors.”). The district court imposed a within-Guidelines-range

sentence after considering the § 3553(a) factors, giving great weight to Ballard’s

extensive history of relatively minor offenses, and considering—but finding

unpersuasive—her arguments in favor of mitigation. The district court did not fail to

consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, give significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in

considering the appropriate factors. See Jenkins, 758 F.3d at 1050. Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________

-4-