USCA11 Case: 23-12451 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12451
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CODY MACK MCCORMICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00020-MMH-MCR-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12451 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12451
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cody McCormick appeals his sentence of 12 months’ impris-
onment with 3 years of supervised release for possession of ammu-
nition by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(8). He argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
unreasonable sentence by misapplying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) and
by failing to impose a reduction based on his possession of ammu-
nition as a collection. He argues that the district court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence because it gave undue weight
to his offense conduct, and it failed to take account of his history
and the nature of the charges against him.
I.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error
and the application of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Cald-
well,
431 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2005). To be clearly erroneous, a
factual finding must leave us with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Rothenberg,
610
F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). Under § 2K2.1(b)(2), a defendant’s
base offense level should be reduced to 6 if the defendant possessed
all ammunition solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection
and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such
firearms or ammunition. The commentary to the Guidelines is au-
thoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or
is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that
USCA11 Case: 23-12451 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 3 of 5
23-12451 Opinion of the Court 3
guideline. United States v. Cingari,
952 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir.
2020). The commentary provides that the relevant surrounding
circumstances for determining if possession qualifies as a collection
include the amount and type of ammunition, the location and cir-
cumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defend-
ant’s criminal history, and the extent to which possession was re-
stricted by law. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.6). The defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his possession was
solely for collection purposes. United States v. Skinner,
968 F.2d
1154, 1156 (11th Cir. 1992).
Here, the court did not clearly err in finding that McCor-
mick’s possession of ammunition was not a collection. It consid-
ered the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, including
McCormick’s testimony, and its analysis tracked the analysis set
forth in the Guidelines commentary. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.6).
McCormick fails to articulate any response to the court’s conclu-
sion that his possession had none of the hallmarks of a collection,
in that he did not know the types of ammunition possessed, did not
trade it, did not attempt to determine its value, and did not try to
care for it or display it prominently within his home.
II.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a defer-
ential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails
to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2)
gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3)
USCA11 Case: 23-12451 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12451
commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors
unreasonably. United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
2010) (en banc). The party challenging the sentence bears the bur-
den of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the
record, the factors listed in § 3553(a), and the substantial deference
afforded sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno,
789 F.3d
1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). The § 3553(a) factors include the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of
the defendant, and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, punish the defendant, protect the public,
and deter crime. § 3553(a). The court has discretion to decide how
much weight to give to each § 3553(a) factor. United States v. Wil-
liams,
526 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir 2008). Further, while we do
not automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines range
is reasonable, we ordinarily expect a sentence within the guidelines
range to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt,
526 F.3d 739, 746
(11th Cir. 2008).
Here, McCormick’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
The court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the nature and
circumstances of his offense, his history and characteristics, includ-
ing his previous convictions, and the need to protect the public. §
3553(a). Further, the court’s sentence was at the low end of the
Guidelines range, indicating that it appropriately considered both
McCormick’s aggravating circumstances, including his regular
drug use, his criminal history, and his proclivity for building and
testing explosives, and his mitigating circumstances, including the
nature of his offense and his desire to reestablish relationships with
USCA11 Case: 23-12451 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 5 of 5
23-12451 Opinion of the Court 5
his family. See Hunt,
526 F.3d at 746. Finally, the court had discre-
tion to decide how much weight to give each § 3553(a) factor,
choosing to emphasize his prior criminal history and his participa-
tion in dangerous activities like creating explosive devices which
could harm the public. See Williams,
526 F.3d at 1323.
AFFIRMED.
