The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 132-month prison sentence for Gary Handford, who was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The appeals court rejected Handford's challenge to what he argued was an excessive sentence that far exceeded federal sentencing guidelines.
In a per curiam opinion filed Jan. 12, 2026, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Rosenbaum, Grant, and Brasher unanimously rejected Handford's arguments that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. The case was decided on the non-argument calendar, indicating the court viewed the legal issues as sufficiently straightforward to decide without oral arguments.
Handford's sentence was substantially above the calculated federal sentencing guidelines range of 30 to 37 months but remained below the statutory maximum of 180 months for the offense. This represented an upward variance of nearly four times the guidelines recommendation, highlighting the district court's view that aggravating factors warranted enhanced punishment.
The case originated from a traffic stop conducted by a Florida police officer who discovered that Handford was the subject of two active arrest warrants. When the officer attempted to arrest him, Handford refused to comply and ignored verbal commands to stop resisting. During the struggle that ensued, the officer discovered that Handford was in possession of a firearm despite his status as a convicted felon.
On appeal, Handford raised three primary arguments challenging his sentence. First, he contended that the district court improperly relied on one of his previous sentences for the same offense when determining the appropriate punishment. Second, he argued that the trial court failed to give appropriate weight to the calculated guideline range when deciding to impose the upward variance. Third, Handford claimed that the district court unreasonably weighed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Eleventh Circuit systematically rejected each of these arguments in its brief opinion. The appeals court found that the district court properly considered Handford's criminal history and previous sentences as part of its analysis of the appropriate punishment. Federal sentencing law allows judges to consider a defendant's prior criminal conduct, including previous convictions for similar offenses, when determining an appropriate sentence within statutory limits.
Regarding Handford's second argument about the weight given to the guidelines range, the appeals court noted that while district courts must calculate and consider the guidelines, they are not bound by them. The Supreme Court's decision in *United States v. Booker* made the federal sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, giving district judges discretion to impose sentences above or below the calculated range when justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court also found that the district court reasonably weighed the statutory sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes by the defendant.
Felon-in-possession cases have become increasingly common in federal courts, as prosecutors often pursue federal charges against convicted felons found with firearms due to the potential for enhanced sentences under federal law. The federal prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is designed to prevent individuals with criminal histories from accessing weapons that could be used in future crimes.
Handford's case illustrates the significant sentencing discretion that federal judges possess, even when imposing sentences well above the advisory guidelines range. Courts of appeals generally defer to district court sentencing decisions unless they find clear abuse of discretion, which requires showing that the sentence was unreasonable given the facts and applicable law.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance of Handford's sentence reflects the appellate court's conclusion that the district court properly balanced all relevant factors and imposed a reasonable sentence despite its substantial departure from the guidelines range. The decision serves as a reminder that defendants with extensive criminal histories, particularly those involving repeated violations of federal firearms laws, may face enhanced punishment that significantly exceeds standard guideline calculations.
The opinion was marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," indicating that while it resolves Handford's individual case, it is not intended to establish binding precedent for future cases in the circuit. This designation is common for cases that apply well-established legal principles to specific factual circumstances without breaking new legal ground.