US v. Clifton Smith, No. 08-4240 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLIFTON EARL WAGNER SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-LHT-5) Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 2, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant Smith pled to guilty to a plea agreement, conspiracy to Clifton possess Earl with Wagner intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base ( crack ), in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Smith to 210 months in prison. Smith timely appealed. Smith s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. whether the sentence imposed was Counsel questions inconsistent with the plea agreement and whether the plea agreement was improperly onesided in favor of the Government. Smith was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he did not file one. Our thorough review of the record, including the plea agreement and the sentence hearing transcript, convinces us that In accordance with Anders, we Smith s claims are meritless. have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition United States for further review. 2 the Supreme Court of the If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
