United States v. Dana L. Ford , 172 F. App'x 704 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2164
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Dana L. Ford,                           *
    *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 1, 2006
    Filed: March 31, 2006
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
    home pursuant to a search warrant, a jury found Dana L. Ford guilty of being a felon
    in possession of a firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). The district court2
    1
    The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable
    Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
    Missouri, to whom the motion was referred pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b).
    2
    The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    sentenced him to thirty months in prison and three years of supervised release. On
    appeal, he challenges the denial of his motion to suppress and his request for an
    acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
    We first conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ford’s
    suppression motion because the information within the four corners of the affidavit
    submitted in support of the search warrant application was sufficient to establish
    probable cause. See United States v. Solomon, 
    432 F.3d 824
    , 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005).
    We also conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ford a reduction at
    sentencing for acceptance of responsibility because he challenged his factual guilt at
    trial. See United States v. Yirkovsky, 
    338 F.3d 936
    , 941 (8th Cir. 2003).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2164

Citation Numbers: 172 F. App'x 704

Filed Date: 3/31/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023