U.S. v. Ballard

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 92-month, above Guidelines sentence on unlawful possession of firearm charge, even though said sentence was 125 percent above high-end of applicable Guideline range. While Dist. Ct. must give thorough explanation when it imposes sentence that is well-above Guideline range, Dist. Ct. provided adequate explanation to justify instant sentence, where Dist. Ct. justified sentence by noting that: (1) defendant had long criminal history and that previous sentences did not deter defendant from committing subsequent crimes; (2) defendant’s criminal history contained violent crimes; and (3) instant charged offense concerned large amounts of firearms, cash, marijuana and other drugs. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. could not consider his possession of other firearms and his drug dealing, where Dist. Ct. could properly consider additional uncharged criminal conduct. Ct. also rejected defendant’s contention that instant sentence was substantively unreasonable, where Ct. found that serious nature of instant charged offense, defendant’s continual recidivism, lack of respect for law, need for deterrence and protection of public outweighed any mitigation defendant proffered.