United States v. Derrick Ford
24-11412
11th Cir.May 22, 2025Background
- Derrick Ford pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm after the government dropped charges that would have qualified him as an armed career criminal.
- Ford was stopped by police and found in possession of a stolen pistol; he admitted both possession and that it was stolen, and acknowledged gang affiliation.
- Ford’s criminal history was lengthy, including juvenile and adult convictions for violent and property crimes; he had multiple probation revocations, some tied to additional violent conduct.
- The presentence report calculated a guideline range of 24–30 months but a statutory maximum of 10 years; the government recommended 84 months.
- The district court sentenced Ford to 120 months, citing extensive criminal history and dangerous conduct, granting an upward variance from the guideline range.
- Ford appealed, challenging both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Ford's Argument | Gov't Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error for fact-finding on gun possession | District court erred by referring to Ford’s criminal conduct involving guns without prior gun convictions | Court can consider all relevant, undisputed conduct, not just convictions | District court did not plainly err; can rely on undisputed presentence statements |
| Upward variance (Substantive reasonableness) | 120-month sentence was excessive given guidelines and mitigators | Ford’s extensive and violent criminal history justifies a higher sentence | No abuse of discretion; upward variance justified by facts |
| Consideration of being charged as armed career criminal | Improper for court to note prosecution could have sought harsher charges | History and potential penalties are relevant to character and conduct | No significant weight given to improper factor; court’s consideration was valid |
| Unwarranted sentencing disparities | Sentence creates disparities compared to other similarly-situated defendants | Ford’s case is factually distinct, making comparisons inappropriate | No unwarranted disparity absent comparably situated defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentences based on clearly erroneous facts are procedurally unreasonable)
- United States v. Hedges, 175 F.3d 1312 (presentence reports' undisputed facts may be relied upon)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (court may consider relevant background/conduct, including uncharged conduct)
- United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272 (district courts have wide discretion to weigh criminal history in sentencing)
- United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (upward variances justified by lengthy criminal history, including juvenile adjudications)
- United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018 (no unwarranted disparity among non-similarly situated defendants)