United States of America v. John Ward

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3724
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
John Ward
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 21, 2024
Filed: February 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
John Ward pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, and the district court1
sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment. Ward appeals, arguing that his sentence
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
is substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
affirm.
In March 2023, police stopped a vehicle with expired temporary license plates
in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Ward was seated in the passenger seat. Officers arrested
the driver on outstanding warrants and asked Ward to get out of the car. Though he
stated a recent hip surgery prevented him from doing so, Ward eventually complied.
He told the officers that he had guns in his pants, and upon searching Ward, the
officers discovered a loaded revolver and a loaded pistol. The officers also
discovered small bags in his pants containing substances which, according to Ward,
included methamphetamine, marijuana, and ecstasy, though testing only confirmed
the presence of methamphetamine and fentanyl. Acknowledging that he carried the
firearms, Ward later told police that he possessed them for protection, given his close
proximity to criminal activity and his current physical condition. A grand jury
indicted Ward on three counts,2 but Ward ultimately pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).
At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the Presentence
Investigation Report prepared by the United States Probation Office and calculated
a United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment.
Although recognizing the seriousness of his conduct, Ward requested a below-
Guidelines sentence. He pointed to his early exposure to alcohol and drugs, his
abandonment by his mother when he was young, his schizophrenia, ADD, and
PTSD, and his failure to graduate high school as mitigating factors. Ward also
argued that his base offense level was inflated, as his 15-year-old robbery conviction
occurred while Ward was addicted to drugs. Finally, Ward pointed to his non-
2 Ward was also indicted on one count of possessing with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and
possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), but those counts were dismissed on motion of the
Government.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
violent compliance with law enforcement during his arrest as justification for a
downward departure. The Government recommended an 84-month sentence,
however, pointing to Ward’s lengthy criminal history and possession of the loaded
guns contemporaneously with controlled substances in a heavily trafficked area.
The district court considered both parties’ arguments, stating that there were
both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The district court noted that Ward’s
early introduction to alcohol and drugs, mental health issues, and lack of support
system and education all served as mitigating factors, as did Ward’s compliance with
police officers during his arrest. In the district court’s view, however, there were
also aggravating circumstances that warranted consideration. The court found that
Ward’s lengthy criminal history demonstrated his tendency for violence as well as a
lack of respect for the law, and that his prior sentences had not deterred him from
continuing to break the law. Further, though the court noted that Ward was
compliant during his arrest, it concluded that his possession of the firearms in close
proximity with drugs was a dangerous combination. After analyzing the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Ward to 96 months’ imprisonment—
the top of his Guidelines range. Ward appeals that sentence, arguing that it is
substantively unreasonable.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Mims, 122 F.4th 1021, 1034 (8th Cir. 2024). A district
court abuses its discretion at sentencing if it ignores a relevant § 3553(a) factor that
should have received significant weight, gives too much weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or commits a clear error of judgment even when weighing only
appropriate factors. Id. Ward asserts that the district court did not give proper
weight to certain mitigating factors, including his early exposure and continuing
addiction to drugs, struggles with mental illness, lack of education and support
network, abandonment by his mother, and his compliance with law enforcement
when arrested.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
As Ward acknowledges, however, the district court considered each of these
factors. The district court considered that Ward’s mother effectively abandoned him
at a young age, which had a lasting psychological impact. The district court noted
that Ward’s early introduction to drugs and alcohol, his failure to graduate high
school, and his underlying mental health issues were mitigating factors. In addition
to considering those personal circumstances, the district court also noted Ward’s
compliance with law enforcement when he was arrested. In the district court’s view,
however, the aggravating factors outweighed these mitigating circumstances.
At bottom, Ward merely “disagrees with the district court’s weighing of the
relevant factors.” See United States v. Corey, 36 F.4th 819, 823 (8th Cir. 2022).
Absent a “clear error of judgment,” that the district court “weighed relevant
factors . . . more heavily than [Ward] would prefer does not mean the district court
abused its discretion.” See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.
2011). The district court appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors, including
both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court then imposed a within-
Guidelines sentence, which carries a presumption of reasonableness. See Mims, 122
F.4th at 1036. Ward has not rebutted that presumption, and nothing in the record
convinces us that the district court committed a “clear error of judgment.” See
Corey, 36 F.4th at 823-24 (affirming imposition of within-Guidelines sentence
despite defendant’s mental and physical health issues and cooperation with law
enforcement). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Ward’s sentence.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --