United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1227

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nicholas Nigel Ford

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central 

____________ 

Submitted: January 9, 2023

Filed: February 15, 2023

[Unpublished]

___________ 

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Ford pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. At 
-2- 

sentencing, the district court1 varied downward from Ford’s advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range and sentenced him to serve a 240-month term of imprisonment. 

Ford appeals, asserting: (1) the district improperly calculated the drug quantity 

attributable to him resulting in an improper Sentencing Guidelines calculation; and 

(2) the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. 

In his plea agreement, Ford admitted to possessing with intent to distribute 35 

grams of a methamphetamine mixture and receiving at least one shipment of 20 

pounds of a methamphetamine mixture. The parties also stipulated that they would 

recommend at sentencing that the district court find the conspiracy involved at least 

five kilograms of a mixture containing methamphetamine, which would result in a

base offense level of at least 34 under the Sentencing Guidelines. After reviewing 

the discovery materials and using the drug equivalency table for combining differing 

controlled substances, the presentence investigation report (“PSIR”) determined the

offense involved more than 90,000 kilograms of converted drug weight, which 

placed Ford’s base offense level at 38, yielding a Sentencing Guidelines range of 

292 to 365 months. Ford objected to the drug quantity being attributed to him, and 

the district court took up the issue at the sentencing hearing. 

At sentencing, the government urged the district court to adopt the PSIR 

calculation and submitted the grand jury transcripts from two individuals who 

testified about Ford’s involvement in drug trafficking. Ford’s mother and stepfather 

testified on his behalf. After considering the evidence presented, the district court 

overruled Ford’s objection to the drug quantity calculation and adopted the 

calculation set forth in the PSIR, finding the quantity contained in the report was a 

conservative calculation based upon the grand jury testimony. After weighing both 

aggravating and mitigating factors, the court varied downward from the advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment

and a five-year term of supervised release. 

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
-3- 

Ford challenges the district court’s drug quantity calculation, asserting it was 

not supported by competent evidence. A district court’s drug quantity determination 

is a factual finding, which we review for clear error. United States v. Shaw, 965 

F.3d 921, 926 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 420 

(8th Cir. 2012)). “We will overturn a finding of drug quantity only if the entire 

record definitively and firmly convinces us that a mistake has been made.” Id. 

(quoting United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 2003)). 

While Ford asserts that his mother and stepfather’s testimony undermined the 

grand jury testimony, the record demonstrates something different—Ford had 

opportunities to engage in drug dealing during times unaccounted for by the 

testimony of his mother and stepfather. Further, as noted by the district court, the 

grand jury testimony was not inconsistent with Ford’s own admissions. The district 

court did not clearly err in determining the drug quantity attributable to Ford. See

United States v. Still, 6 F.4th 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted) (reiterating 

that consideration of grand jury testimony at sentencing is permissible, as it has

indicia of reliability because it is given under oath and subject to perjury penalties). 

We review Ford’s next claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. John, 27 F.4th 644, 651 (8th 

Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “Our review of the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence is narrow and deferential, and it is the unusual case when we reverse a 

district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Sentencing 

Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” Id. (quoting United States v. 

Whitlow, 815 F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir. 2016)). The district court considered the 

relevant factors in fashioning Ford’s sentence and adequately explained the bases

for the length of its downward variance. 
-4- 

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to apply a greater 

variance. See id. (recognizing the district court’s wide latitude in weighing the 

sentencing factors and assigning some greater weight than others). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________