UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5153
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
QUINDELL FORD, a/k/a Nephew,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00219-RDB-1)
Submitted: September 7, 2011 Decided: September 9, 2011
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haneef L. Omar, LAW OFFICES OF HANEEF L. OMAR, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Michael J. Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quindell Ford appeals his 336-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2006), and one count of
possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(i),
(ii) (2006). On appeal, Ford argues that the district court
procedurally erred in determining his sentence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of
review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of
sentencing error in district court “[b]y drawing arguments from
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2006)] for a sentence different than the
one ultimately imposed”). We begin by reviewing the sentence
for significant procedural error, including such errors as
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2
On appeal, Ford argues that the district court
procedurally erred by (1) granting a one-level departure in his
criminal history category but subsequently varying upward; (2)
failing to adequately explain its upward variance; and (3)
creating an unwarranted sentencing disparity between Ford and a
codefendant. We hold that the district court reasonably based
its upward variance, subsequent to the downward departure, on a
variety of § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its
decision to do so. Further, because Ford’s codefendant was
convicted and sentenced on different counts of the indictment,
we hold that a comparison of the two sentences was unnecessary.
We thus discern no procedural error, let alone significant error
requiring reversal.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3