United States v. Jamie Ballard
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19413
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jamie L. Ballard pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 121–151 months.
- Ballard sought a downward variance based on non-violent recent convictions, drug addiction, lack of prior prison time, minor amount over a Guidelines threshold, childcare and employment/school history.
- The government highlighted Ballard’s positive methamphetamine tests during pretrial release and the magistrate’s revocation of release.
- The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 121 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, emphasizing Ballard’s extensive history of 31 prior convictions (all misdemeanors) and continued criminal conduct.
- The court stated it imposed the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for punishment, deterrence, respect for the law, and to reflect the offense’s seriousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 121‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Ballard: court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors (addiction, nonviolent misdemeanors, lack of prison history, family/rehabilitation efforts) | Government: sentence within range and justified by defendant’s extensive criminal history and failure to rehabilitate | Affirmed: sentence substantively reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
| Whether district court failed to consider relevant mitigating factors | Ballard: mitigating factors should have received significant weight | District court: did consider them but gave them little weight relative to other § 3553(a) factors | Court: no requirement to address every argument; mitigating factors were considered |
| Whether district court gave improper weight to factors | Ballard: court overemphasized prior misdemeanors and ignored addiction/rehabilitation | District court: properly weighed history of criminal conduct more heavily | Court: within wide latitude to weigh factors; no improper weighting |
| Whether district court committed clear error in judgment in weighing § 3553(a) factors | Ballard: court’s weighing constituted clear error | Government: discretionary weighing is permitted | Court: no clear error; within‑Guidelines sentence justified by circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion framework for sentencing review)
- United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484 (8th Cir.) (district courts need not respond to every argument or mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754 (8th Cir.) (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir.) (permissible to assign greater weight to offense characteristics than to mitigating personal characteristics)