UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00032-FPS-JES-1)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 11, 2009
Before KING and DUNCAN Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, David J. Perri, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Ford appeals his sentence following his guilty
plea to being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Ford
argues that the district court procedurally erred in calculating
his guideline sentencing range because Ford was entitled to the
sporting and collection exception pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2008).
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In determining whether a
sentence is procedurally reasonable, this court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory guideline range. Id. In assessing whether a
sentencing court properly applied the Guidelines, this court
reviews the court’s factual findings for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d
522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006).
The defendant bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a specified
reduction in his guideline sentencing level. See United
States v. Abdi, 342 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2003). Section
2
2K2.1(b)(2) of the Guidelines provides for a sentencing level
reduction when the ammunition in question is possessed by a
disqualified person “solely for lawful sporting purposes or
collection” and the defendant did not otherwise unlawfully use
that ammunition. Given that Ford lacked a hunting license and
told investigating officers that he intended to hunt deer, which
would not be legal to hunt for another seven months, the
district court did not clearly err by concluding that Ford
failed to show that he possessed the ammunition for lawful
sporting purposes. Therefore, the district court did not err in
denying a USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction in Ford’s guideline
sentencing level.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3