United States v. William Ormond, III
713 F. App'x 186
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- William L. Ormond III pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court imposed an upward variant sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment, above the Guidelines range.
- At sentencing the court expressly considered multiple § 3553(a) factors and heard Ormond’s mitigating arguments.
- The court relied on Ormond’s long history of carrying firearms from a young age, repeated flight from police (sometimes while armed), and prior assaultive conduct.
- The court emphasized Ormond’s participation in a jail fight while knowing he was being videotaped and that the court was inclined to sentence above the Guidelines; the court viewed this as brazen disregard for authority warranting greater deterrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the upward variance | Ormond argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable (insufficient explanation/consideration of § 3553(a)) | Government argued court properly considered § 3553(a), did not rely on impermissible factors, and considered mitigating arguments | Court held the sentencing explanation was sufficient and procedurally reasonable |
| Substantive reasonableness and extent of variance from Guidelines | Ormond argued the upward variance was substantively unreasonable (too great given circumstances) | Government argued the variance was justified by Ormond’s history (firearms, fleeing, assault) and recent jail fight showing disregard for authority and need for deterrence | Court held the upward variance was substantively reasonable given the totality of circumstances and the compelling reasons for divergence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences; procedural and substantive analysis required)
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (application of abuse-of-discretion review to sentences)
- United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (review of decisions imposing sentences outside the Guidelines range)
- United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2006) (greater divergence from Guidelines requires more compelling reasons)
- United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (deference to district court’s judgment about § 3553(a) factors)