Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in 2003. After serving his sentence, he was released to supervised release in 2008. However, Smith was then arrested on new drug and firearm charges, violating the terms of his release. At a hearing, Smith admitted to the violations. The district court sentenced Smith to 60 months in prison, the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Smith appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable. However, the appeals court found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for the sentence imposed in consideration of the §3553(a) factors and Smith's arguments. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views4 pages
    Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in 2003. After serving his sentence, he was released to supervised release in 2008. However, Smith was then arrested on new drug and firearm charges, violating the terms of his release. At a hearing, Smith admitted to the violations. The district court sentenced Smith to 60 months in prison, the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Smith appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable. However, the appeals court found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for the sentence imposed in consideration of the §3553(a) factors and Smith's arguments. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4721

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in 2003. After serving his sentence, he was released to supervised release in 2008. However, Smith was then arrested on new drug and firearm charges, violating the terms of his release. At a hearing, Smith admitted to the violations. The district court sentenced Smith to 60 months in prison, the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Smith appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable. However, the appeals court found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for the sentence imposed in consideration of the §3553(a) factors and Smith's arguments. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views4 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in 2003. After serving his sentence, he was released to supervised release in 2008. However, Smith was then arrested on new drug and firearm charges, violating the terms of his release. At a hearing, Smith admitted to the violations. The district court sentenced Smith to 60 months in prison, the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Smith appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable. However, the appeals court found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for the sentence imposed in consideration of the §3553(a) factors and Smith's arguments. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4721

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ERIC LAMONT SMITH,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:03-cr-00306-RLW)

    Submitted:

    May 3, 2011

    Decided:

    May 26, 2011

    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.


    Neil H.
    MacBride, United States Attorney, Roderick C. Young, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eric
    intent

    to

    Lamont

    distribute

    Smith

    was

    cocaine

    convicted

    of

    hydrochloride,

    possession
    in

    with

    violation

    of

    21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in


    furtherance

    of

    drug

    trafficking

    18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) (2006).

    crime,

    in

    violation

    of

    He served his active sentence

    and was released to supervision on January 30, 2008.

    After

    learning Smith had been arrested on additional drug and firearm


    charges, his probation officer petitioned the district court to
    revoke supervised release.

    Smith admitted the violations, and

    the district court sentenced him to sixty months imprisonment,


    the top of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009) policy
    statement range.

    Smith noted a timely appeal.

    Smith challenges the procedural reasonableness of his


    supervised release sentence.

    He argues that the district court

    failed to adequately consider the factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)


    (2006).

    He

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    court

    stated

    no

    particularized reason why the sentence selected was no greater


    than necessary, and he argues that the district court failed to
    consider

    that

    Smith

    had

    received

    lengthy

    sentence

    for

    offenses underlying his supervised release violations.


    does

    not

    challenge

    the

    substantive

    sentence.

    reasonableness

    the

    Smith
    of

    his

    In
    supervised

    reviewing
    release,

    sentence

    this

    court

    imposed
    takes

    upon

    revocation

    more

    of

    deferential

    appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of


    discretion

    than

    sentences.

    reasonableness

    United

    States v.

    review

    Moulden,

    for
    478

    [G]uidelines

    F.3d

    652,

    656

    (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
    439 (4th Cir. 2006)).
    different

    than

    reviewed

    for

    595 F.3d

    544,

    the

    plain
    546

    Because Smith did not request a sentence


    one

    ultimately

    error.

    See

    imposed,

    United

    (4th Cir. 2010);

    592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010).

    his

    States

    United

    sentence
    v.

    is

    Thompson,

    States

    v.

    Lynn,

    To establish plain error,

    Smith must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain;
    and (3) the error affects substantial rights.

    United States v.

    Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).


    We
    error,

    review

    including

    the

    such

    sentence

    errors

    as

    for

    significant

    improperly

    procedural

    calculating

    the

    policy statement range, failing to adequately explain the chosen


    sentence,

    and

    failing

    to

    consider

    the

    helpful

    assistance

    contained in the [USSG] Chapter 7 policy statements along with


    the

    statutory

    [18 U.S.C.]
    sentences.
    and

    citation

    requirements
    3553(a)

    of

    [18

    factors

    U.S.C.]

    applicable

    3583
    to

    and

    the

    revocation

    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks


    omitted);

    552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

    see

    also

    Gall

    v.

    United

    States,

    A court need not be as detailed or


    3

    specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when


    imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide
    a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.

    Thompson,

    595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656).


    We

    conclude

    that

    the

    explained the sentence imposed.

    district

    court

    adequately

    [W]hen a judge decides simply

    to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not


    necessarily

    require

    lengthy

    explanation.

    States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).


    for

    particular

    sentence,

    and

    Rita

    v.

    United

    Here, Smith made no argument


    only

    asked

    that

    the

    district

    court consider that he had received a fourteen-year sentence for


    the offenses comprising his supervised release violation.

    The

    district court clearly considered and rejected this argument, as


    reflected by the courts remark that the flagrancy of Smiths
    violations

    evidenced

    the

    necessity

    of

    higher

    sentence

    to

    promote respect for the law and provide for some deterrence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like