Court Opinion

ID: 9371084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:01:32.986744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.284379
License: Public Domain

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                                [Unpublished]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
sentencing, the district court 1 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.
                                   -2-
       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.

                                          -3-
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.
                     ______________________________

                                       -4-