Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey L. DUCKSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
[Unpublished]
Jeffrey Ducksworth pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His six prior felony convictions placed Ducksworth in Criminal History Category VI, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 51 to 63 months imprisonment. The district court 1 varied upward and imposed a 72-month sentence. Ducksworth appeals, arguing the district court committed a clear error of judgment and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence when it varied upward based on Ducksworth’s criminal history. We affirm.
Ducksworth stole the firearm in question from a vehicle in Clay County, Missouri, on June 30, 2015. In July he stole a credit card from a vehicle in Platte County, and in August he attempted to use another stolen credit card at a gas station in Clay County. He pleaded guilty to state court offenses for the July and August thefts before being indicted for this firearm offense. At sentencing, the district court noted that Ducksworth had six state court felony convictions for non-violent offenses between 2005 and 2015; he served relatively short sentences and then resumed stealing when released. Recognizing that Ducksworth had taken responsibility and expressed remorse, and considering “all the other [sentencing] factors,” the court imposed an upward variance “driven because of your criminal history and the need to protect the public and the need for deterrence.” Ducksworth argues the court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history and failed to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, “a sentencing court has wide latitude to weigh the section 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others.” United States v. Roberts, 747 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). There was no abuse of the district court’s substantial sentencing discretion.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-1537
Decided: July 06, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)