UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

QUINDELL FORD, a/k/a Nephew,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:09-cr-00219-RDB-1)

Submitted: September 7, 2011 Decided: September 9, 2011

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haneef L. Omar, LAW OFFICES OF HANEEF L. OMAR, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Michael J. Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quindell Ford appeals his 336-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2006), and one count of 

possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime 

of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 

(ii) (2006). On appeal, Ford argues that the district court 

procedurally erred in determining his sentence. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

We review a sentence imposed by a district court under 

a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 

572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of 

review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of 

sentencing error in district court “[b]y drawing arguments from 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2006)] for a sentence different than the 

one ultimately imposed”). We begin by reviewing the sentence 

for significant procedural error, including such errors as 

“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 

the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the 

Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 
3

On appeal, Ford argues that the district court 

procedurally erred by (1) granting a one-level departure in his 

criminal history category but subsequently varying upward; (2) 

failing to adequately explain its upward variance; and (3) 

creating an unwarranted sentencing disparity between Ford and a 

codefendant. We hold that the district court reasonably based 

its upward variance, subsequent to the downward departure, on a 

variety of § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its 

decision to do so. Further, because Ford’s codefendant was 

convicted and sentenced on different counts of the indictment, 

we hold that a comparison of the two sentences was unnecessary. 

We thus discern no procedural error, let alone significant error 

requiring reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED