Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    United States v. Christopher Smith, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Christopher Lee Smith's sentence of 168 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. While the district court did not provide a detailed explanation for the sentence, the appellate court found no reversible procedural error because the sentence was within the recommended Guidelines range and Smith did not show that a lower sentence might have been imposed absent the error. The appellate court also found the sentence substantively reasonable because it was within the Guidelines range and Smith failed to rebut the presumption that such a sentence is reasonable. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Christopher Smith, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Christopher Lee Smith's sentence of 168 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. While the district court did not provide a detailed explanation for the sentence, the appellate court found no reversible procedural error because the sentence was within the recommended Guidelines range and Smith did not show that a lower sentence might have been imposed absent the error. The appellate court also found the sentence substantively reasonable because it was within the Guidelines range and Smith failed to rebut the presumption that such a sentence is reasonable. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-5324

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Christopher Lee Smith's sentence of 168 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. While the district court did not provide a detailed explanation for the sentence, the appellate court found no reversible procedural error because the sentence was within the recommended Guidelines range and Smith did not show that a lower sentence might have been imposed absent the error. The appellate court also found the sentence substantively reasonable because it was within the Guidelines range and Smith failed to rebut the presumption that such a sentence is reasonable. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views5 pages

    United States v. Christopher Smith, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Christopher Lee Smith's sentence of 168 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. While the district court did not provide a detailed explanation for the sentence, the appellate court found no reversible procedural error because the sentence was within the recommended Guidelines range and Smith did not show that a lower sentence might have been imposed absent the error. The appellate court also found the sentence substantively reasonable because it was within the Guidelines range and Smith failed to rebut the presumption that such a sentence is reasonable. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-5324

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER LEE SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (7:08-cr-00453-HFF-1)

    Submitted:

    June 27, 2011

    Decided:

    August 18, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Benjamin
    T.
    Stepp,
    Assistant
    Federal
    Public
    Defender,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Alan Lance Crick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher

    Lee

    Smith

    pled

    guilty

    without

    plea

    agreement to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or


    more

    of

    cocaine

    and

    possession

    with

    intent

    to

    distribute

    quantity of cocaine and fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in


    violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2006).

    The district court

    sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment, the bottom of the


    Guidelines

    range.

    In

    Anders 1

    his

    brief,

    Smiths

    appellate

    counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal but


    asks the court to review the reasonableness of Smiths sentence
    and

    whether

    Smiths

    trial

    assistance at sentencing. 2
    Although

    counsel

    counsel

    rendered

    We affirm.
    suggests

    that

    the

    unreasonable, he points to no specific error.


    review

    sentence

    for

    ineffective

    reasonableness,

    sentence

    is

    Appellate courts

    applying

    an

    abuse

    of

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

    In his pro se supplemental brief, Smith likewise argues


    that his attorney at sentencing rendered ineffective assistance.
    This court may address [claims of ineffective assistance] on
    direct appeal only if the lawyers ineffectiveness conclusively
    appears from the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d
    233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We conclude that Smith fails to meet
    this standard and decline to address these claims in this direct
    appeal.
    Smith also contends on appeal that he should be
    resentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.
    His claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.
    Bullard, __ F.3d __, __, 2011 WL 1718894, at *9-*11 (4th Cir.
    May 6, 2011) (No. 09-5214).

    discretion standard.
    (2007).

    The

    court

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51


    reviews

    first

    the

    reasonableness

    of

    the

    process by which the sentencing court arrived at its decision


    and then reviews the reasonableness of the sentence itself.

    Id.

    Because

    our

    counsel

    did

    not

    argue

    review is for plain error.

    for

    any

    certain

    sentence,

    See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d

    572, 577-78, 580 (4th Cir. 2010); see also United States v.
    Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing claim of
    procedural

    unreasonableness

    for

    plain

    error

    because

    defendant

    did not argue for sentence different from sentence he received).


    In
    sentence,
    calculated

    determining

    the

    consider

    whether

    we
    the

    Guidelines

    procedural
    the

    range,

    reasonableness

    district

    treated

    the

    court

    of

    properly

    Guidelines

    as

    advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors,


    analyzed

    any

    arguments

    presented

    by

    the

    sufficiently explained the selected sentence.


    51.

    parties,

    and

    Gall, 552 U.S. at

    Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,

    below,

    or

    within-Guidelines

    record

    an

    individualized

    sentence,

    assessment

    facts of the case before it.

    it

    based

    must
    on

    place
    the

    on

    the

    particular

    United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

    325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Where, as here, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines
    sentence, the explanation may be less extensive, while still
    individualized.

    United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639


    3

    (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010).

    However,

    that explanation must be sufficient to allow for meaningful


    appellate review, Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (quoting Gall, 552
    U.S. at 50), such that the appellate court need not guess at
    the district courts rationale.

    Id. at 329.

    Here, the district court properly calculated Smiths


    Guidelines range.

    Although the district court did not give a

    reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, 3 the record


    does not indicate that the court might have imposed a lower
    See Hernandez, 603 F.3d at 273 (stating that error

    sentence.

    affects substantial rights if defendant show[s] that, absent


    the

    error,

    Because

    Smith

    substantial

    different
    cannot

    rights,

    sentence
    show

    we

    that

    conclude

    might

    have

    the

    error

    that

    the

    been

    imposed).

    prejudiced
    district

    his
    court

    committed no reversible procedural error.


    We next assess the substantive reasonableness of the
    sentence,

    taking

    into

    account

    the

    totality

    of

    the

    circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the


    Guidelines range.

    United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473

    (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).

    Where, as here,

    a defendants sentence falls within the Guidelines range, the


    3

    We note that the district court did not have the benefit
    of our decisions in Carter, Lynn, and Hernandez at the time it
    sentenced Smith.

    district

    courts

    reasonableness.

    decision

    enjoys

    presumption

    of

    United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th

    Cir. 2007) (A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines


    range is presumptively reasonable.).

    Smith has failed to rebut

    that presumption of reasonableness.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court

    requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to


    petition

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    the

    United

    States

    for

    further

    review.

    If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

    believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel


    may

    move

    in

    representation.

    this

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Smith.


    facts

    court

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like