United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1573

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bryant Keethe Smith Ford

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

 Submitted: January 11, 2021

Filed: February 17, 2021

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

Bryant Keethe Smith Ford pled guilty to two offenses: conspiracy to distribute

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(vii), and 846; and
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The district court1

 sentenced

Ford to a term of imprisonment of 168 months for the drug trafficking conviction and

a concurrent term of 120 months for money laundering. Ford appeals the court’s

Sentencing Guidelines calculation and denial of his motion for a downward variance. 

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2017, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents in Arkansas

began investigating a drug trafficking organization in Fayetteville. Through the use

of confidential sources, the agents obtained information indicating Ford was

distributing multiple pounds of marijuana and multiple ounces of cocaine in

Arkansas. Meanwhile, DEA agents in Colorado were investigating Long Phan, who

was operating a drug trafficking organization in Colorado. In October 2017, agents

intercepted communications revealing that Phan was a source of supply for Ford and

that Ford planned to travel to Colorado to purchase 35 to 40 pounds of marijuana. 

Agents conducted surveillance on Ford and Phan and observed them meet at

a known “stash house” in Denver, Colorado. Through continued intercepted

communications the agents learned that Ford would be sending payment for the

marijuana he received in Denver to Phan via FedEx. At the Englewood, Colorado,

FedEx Office, agents used a canine service dog to inspect a package mailed by Ford

to Phan. After the dog alerted, agents opened it and found $32,000 in currency. 

Two days later, agents learned of another planned transaction in which Phan

and Ford scheduled to meet in Aurora, Colorado. During the call, Phan stated there

were “45 good ones instead of 50 this time,” which agents understood referenced

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

-2-
marijuana. Agents resumed surveillance of Phan and Ford, observed them meet in

a hotel parking lot, and followed them as they drove in tandem to a known “stash

house” in Arapahoe County, Colorado. The pair stayed at the house for a short time

and then left in different directions, each followed by agents. Phan drove to a FedEx

office to retrieve the already seized package with the money Ford had sent. When

Phan was unable to pick up the package, he called Ford. The pair discussed the

money being seized by the DEA, how the package had their names on it, their

suspicion that they were under investigation, and what excuse they would give to the

marijuana supplier who was owed money.

While some agents were monitoring Phan, Aurora Police Department officers

working in conjunction with the DEA approached Ford who was in a vehicle at a

restaurant parking lot. The officers used a service canine to inspect the vehicle. After

the canine alerted, officers searched the vehicle and found two duffle bags containing

45 pounds of marijuana in individually wrapped one-pound bundles.

In less than two years, Ford encountered law enforcement several more times. 

In April 2019, approximately a year and a half after Ford’s arrest by the Aurora police

officers, Ford was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the Kansas Highway Patrol. 

During a search of the vehicle, the trooper discovered 137 pounds of marijuana and

4.4 pounds of THC “vape” cartridges. Ford told the trooper that he was not

concerned about the marijuana because none of it belonged to him. Ford also told the

trooper that he was a rapper and the driver of the vehicle was his bodyguard. Despite

disclaiming ownership interest of the marijuana to the trooper, the next day Ford

posted on his Facebook account a message, stating: “Biggest Lost I’ve Ever Took in

My Life Head Hurt N Prolly Won’t See Me On Social Media For Awhile.” The

investigating DEA agents believed the message referenced the 137 pounds of

marijuana seized by the Kansas Highway Patrol. The following month law

enforcement stopped Ford’s vehicle in Arizona. A vehicle search revealed 66 pounds

-3-
of marijuana, 500 vials of THC oil, 200 grams of THC wax, 200 grams of THC syrup,

and 200 pre-rolled marijuana cigarettes.

In addition to the intercepted communications and law enforcement encounters,

investigators obtained information about Ford’s drug trafficking organization through

controlled buys, his posts on several different social media accounts, recorded jail

calls, and statements from cooperating witnesses. For instance, Ford posted pictures

on his social media account depicting images of large amounts of cash bundled

together with rubber bands. They also learned Ford used over $129,000 in cash to

purchase vehicles, including a 2015 Range Rover Evoque for $26,800; a 2015 BMW

i8 coupe for $63,000; and a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette for $40,000.

Law enforcement eventually obtained a warrant and searched Ford’s residence

in Fayetteville along with his car. Inside the house officers found $15,016 in cash in

the master bedroom, suspected high value jewelry in the same room, an electronic

money counting machine in a utility closet, and 738 THC cartridges plus two baggies

of marijuana in the kitchen. In the trunk of Ford’s BMW, officers found seven

vacuum-sealed packages of marijuana, each containing one-pound of marijuana. 

Although Ford denied using safe deposit boxes to store cash, another individual told

law enforcement that, at Ford’s direction, she would place envelopes full of cash in

a safe deposit box opened under her name. This same individual also informed

officers that Ford directed her to register various vehicles he purchased in her name,

including a BMW i8 coupe, a Range Rover Evoque, a Fisker Karma, a Dodge

Challenger, a Bentley sedan, and a Chevrolet Corvette. Agents seized $137,000 in

currency from the safe deposit box rented by the cooperating individual and an

additional $111,076 held in a safe deposit box opened in Ford’s name. 

Ford pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and money laundering. 

He also agreed to forfeit the currency seized from the two safe deposit boxes and his

house, three vehicles (a 2015 BMW i8 coupe, 2015 Range Rover Evoque, and 2012

-4-
Fisker Karma), and two 9 mm pistols. Ford’s Sentencing Guidelines range was

calculated to be 168 to 210 months, based on a total offense level of 32 and criminal

history category IV. The court sentenced Ford to a term of imprisonment of 168

months on the drug trafficking count and a concurrent term of 120 months for money

laundering. It also imposed a fine in the amount of $20,000. Ford timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Ford challenges the district court’s application of two Sentencing Guidelines

enhancements: a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer

or leader of criminal activity involving five or more participants or which was

“otherwise extensive,” and a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E) for

committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a

livelihood. We review a district court’s factual findings for an enhancement for clear

error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Sherrod, 966 F.3d 748, 754

(8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2009)). 

The government bears the burden of proving an enhancement applies by a

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Musa, 830 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir.

2016). 

With regard to the leadership role enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) allows for

a four-level increase to a defendant’s offense level “[i]f the defendant was an

organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or

was otherwise extensive.” A “participant” is defined as a person who is “criminally

responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1. In order for the enhancement to be properly applied, the

district court must make a finding that the defendant organized or led another

participant. Musa, 830 F.3d at 788. Here, the court, relying on the undisputed

statements in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSIR”), found that Ford’s drug

trafficking activities met the “otherwise extensive” prong of § 3B1.1(a) and identified

-5-
two participants that Ford directed. The court also found that Ford’s drug trafficking

organization included more than five participants and identified with specificity the

involvement of more than five participants. Having carefully reviewed the record,

we are confident that the district court correctly understood and applied § 3B1.1(a). 

We conclude the district court’s findings are supported by the record and the court

did not err in applying a leadership role enhancement.

Ford also challenges the district court’s application for criminal livelihood,

which consisted of a two-level increase to his offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E)

of the Sentencing Guidelines. Ford asserts there was insufficient evidence to prove

the sale of drugs was his primary occupation, arguing the district court improperly

ignored evidence that he derived income from a clothing line, his music career, and

gambling. In support of his argument, Ford cites to three paragraphs in the PSIR. 

The first one included Ford’s assertion made during a law enforcement interview in

which Ford stated the business he co-owned, Northwest Arkansas Restoration, did not

make him any money but he earned a living through a clothing line and his music

career. The second paragraph cited by Ford described 1099-MISC tax forms filed by

various casinos. We note the court sustained Ford’s objection to this paragraph and

indicated it would not consider the information for sentencing purposes. In the other

paragraph cited by Ford, he self-reported that his clothing business was “a small

operation” that he conducted as a “side project.” Although Ford reported the business

earned approximately $2,000 a month, agents were unable to corroborate Ford’s

representation and learned that most, if not all, of the individuals who wore clothing

with Ford’s graphic designs were persons connected to his drug trafficking operation. 

Outside of his clothing business, Ford reported to the PSIR writer that he was last

employed at a Dunkin’ Donuts where he worked for approximately one month and

was paid minimum wage.

 

For the two-level increase under § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E) to apply, the evidence must

establish that (1) in a 12-month period the defendant received an income from the

-6-
criminal activity that was 2,000 times the federal minimum wage, and (2) during the

12-month period, the criminal activity was the defendant’s primary occupation. 

U.S.S.G § 4B1.3 cmt. n.2. At sentencing, Ford acknowledged that he made money

from the sale of marijuana, but argued the court was unable to quantify the amount

without making assumptions. Ford contends on appeal the district court erred by

applying the criminal livelihood enhancement because it did not make a specific

finding on the second prong, which requires criminal conduct to be Ford’s primary

occupation in a 12-month period. The court made thorough findings regarding

application of the first prong of the criminal livelihood enhancement. At the

conclusion, the court asked Ford if it “failed to address or resolve any of defendant’s

objections.” Ford responded, “No.” When “a defendant fails to timely object to a

procedural sentencing error, the error is forfeited and may only be reviewed for plain

error.” United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 2008). 

In determining a defendant’s primary occupation, a court may consider

evidence regarding the market value of the drugs sold as well as evidence that

defendant lacked gainful employment. United States v. Denson, 967 F.3d 699, 707

(8th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). The record contains substantial evidence about

the large quantities of marijuana involved in Ford’s drug trafficking operation;

however, there is little evidence about gainful employment. There is no evidence

about how much money Ford purported to have earned from his music career and he

objected to the court considering the 1099-MISC tax forms regarding his casino

gambling. Even considering Ford’s self-serving statement that he earned $2,000 a

month from his clothing business, it is plain on this record that this income could not

serve as Ford’s primary occupation. In addition to purchasing vehicles for $89,800

in cash in February 2019 and having in excess of $250,000 in cash in July 2019, Ford

rented a residence in Fayetteville for $1,195 per month and he paid $1,894 per month

for an apartment in Texas. Ford also reported a shoe collection to be worth an

estimated $20,000. The undisputed facts in the record lead to only one rational 

conclusion: Ford’s drug trafficking was his primary occupation during the relevant

-7-
12-month period. Ford cannot show any error that affected his substantial rights. See

United States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 341–343 (8th Cir. 2020) (concluding the

defendant cannot succeed on his sentencing challenges because, under plain error

review, he must show an error that affected his substantial rights).

Lastly, Ford challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward

variance. We review the denial of a motion for downward variance by reviewing the

sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 

United States v. Acosta, 619 F.3d 956, 962–63 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States

v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 607 (8th Cir. 2009)). Ford’s within-Guidelines sentence

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 672 (8th

Cir. 2016). When explaining the reasons for its sentence, the court identified several

mitigating factors, such as Ford’s mental health issues, drug addiction, and lack of

youthful guidance. The court also detailed a number of aggravating factors, including

Ford’s position as distributor of the single largest marijuana trafficking organization

the court had ever encountered, possession of a firearm while engaging in drug

trafficking, a significant criminal history that is indicative of a lack of respect for

rules and the law, a high likelihood to recidivate unless Ford changes his attitude, and

concern about public safety. The district court thoroughly discussed the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), took into consideration mitigating factors identified by

Ford (as well as aggravating factors), and adequately explained the reasons for the

sentence. Ford has neither rebutted the presumption of reasonableness nor

demonstrated that the court’s refusal to vary downward rendered the sentence

substantively unreasonable. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-8-