United States of America v. Marcus Angelo Buford

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with armed robbery.

Defendant Marcus Buford pleaded guilty to three criminal counts stemming

from his robbery of two Oklahoma City liquor stores and was sentenced to a total

term of imprisonment of 300 months



On May 25, 2022, Mr. Buford stole multiple bottles of liquor from two liquor

stores in northwest Oklahoma City. During one of the robberies, Mr. Buford pulled

out a handgun from his pocket, showed it to the owner who was trying to stop him

from leaving the store, and threatened to shoot him. During the other robbery, the

store owner confronted Mr. Buford after he had left the store and entered his car.

Mr. Buford responded by shooting the owner in the face with a handgun.



A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Buford on four criminal counts: Counts 1

and 3 charged Mr. Buford with interference with commerce by robbery, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); Count 3 charged Mr. Buford with possessing and brandishing

a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and Count 4 charged Mr. Buford with possessing, brandishing,

and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).



Mr. Buford entered into a written plea agreement, pursuant to which he agreed

to plead guilty to Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the indictment. Under the terms of the plea

agreement, Mr. Buford waived his "right to appeal [his] guilty plea, and any other

aspect of [his] conviction.” R. vol. I at 33. He also waived his right to appeal his

sentence, including "the manner in which [it wa]s determined, including its

procedural reasonableness.” Id. He retained his right to appeal the substantive

reasonableness of his sentence if it was "above the advisory Guidelines range

determined by the Court to apply to [his] case.” Id.



The presentence investigation report (PSR) proposed a total offense level of

29, a criminal history score of six, and a criminal history category of III. The PSR in

turn proposed an advisory guideline sentence range of 108 to 135 months, but noted

that Count 4 (the firearm charge) required the imposition of a 120-month term of

imprisonment consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed for the other counts

of conviction.1 Neither party objected to the PSR.



The government moved for an upward variance to an aggregate sentence of

360 months, arguing that a variance was warranted by "[t]he high risk to innocent

life, public safety, and personal property posed by Mr. Buford's release from

custody.” R. vol. I at 44. Mr. Buford moved for a downward variance, noting his

personal history and the fact he "was a heavy alcoholic at the time of the thefts and

his thefts were motivated by that addiction.” Id. at 49.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the findings and proposed

calculations in the PSR. After considering all of the information presented by the

parties and independently examining the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the

district court sentenced Mr. Buford to a term of imprisonment of 87 months as to

Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive term of imprisonment of 213 months as to Count 4, resulting in a total term of imprisonment of 300 months. The district court noted that this represented "an upward variance as to Count 4 and as to the total sentence imposed.” R. vol. III at 59. The district court concluded that an upward variance

was appropriate given Mr. Buford's "disregard for human life” and "the need for

specific and general deterrence.” Id.

Affirmed