United States v. Donta Ferguson
664 F. App'x 854
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Defendant Donta Ferguson sold crack cocaine in seven controlled buys; an October 2014 search of his home recovered marijuana, crack/cocaine (mixture <2% cocaine purity), a sawed-off shotgun, and a semiautomatic rifle.
- Ferguson pleaded guilty to: possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 2), and possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun (Count 3).
- The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5) (base offense level 18) for the short-barreled shotgun and a 4-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection with another felony, producing an offense level of 22, reduced to 19 for acceptance of responsibility.
- With criminal history category I, the guideline range was 30–37 months. The court sentenced Ferguson to 30 months’ imprisonment (low end of the range).
- Ferguson argued on appeal that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, primarily because the cocaine mixture had only ~2% purity and the court failed adequately to consider mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Government: sentence is reasonable (within Guideline range). | Ferguson: low cocaine purity and mitigating facts warrant a downward variance/departure. | Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable. |
| Whether the district court failed to consider cocaine purity | Government: district court considered purity but weighed firearm more heavily. | Ferguson: low purity should have led to lower sentence. | Court found district court considered purity and permissibly gave greater weight to firearm. |
| Whether the court ignored mitigating evidence | Government: court considered §3553(a) factors and case facts. | Ferguson: sentencing court did not explicitly discuss his mitigation (upbringing, substance abuse). | No error — explicit statement that court considered §3553(a) sufficed. |
| Whether a within-Guidelines sentence requires special justification | Government: within-guidelines sentences are generally expected to be reasonable. | Ferguson: sought deviation despite within-guidelines range. | A within-Guidelines sentence (especially low-end) is presumed reasonable and here was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (sets two-step abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (explains when a district court abuses discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (burden on challenger to show sentence unreasonable)
- United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (court expects within-Guidelines sentence to be reasonable)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (a sentence well below statutory maximum supports reasonableness)
- United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (weight accorded each §3553(a) factor is for the district court)
- United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court need not expressly recite every mitigating fact to show consideration)