US v. Joseph Smith, No. 09-5179 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5179 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH JEROME SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:04-cr-00003-FL-1) Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Jerome Smith appeals the sixty-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court after finding that Smith violated his criminal conduct. or more of term of supervised release prohibiting Smith pled guilty to distributing five grams cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). that the sixty-month sentence is On appeal, Smith argues excessive and plainly unreasonable because the district court procedurally erred by failing to render an individualized assessment because its statement that Smith was a very dangerous person was unsupported by the record. We disagree. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within range and not plainly unreasonable. the prescribed statutory United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is unreasonable. determination, we follow the Id. at 438. In making this procedural and substantive Smith was subject to a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of five years following a revocation of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). 2 considerations sentences. that Id. we at employ 438. In in this our review inquiry, of we original take a more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion sentences. Cir. than reasonableness review of Guidelines United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th 2007). Only if we find substantively unreasonable, plainly so. the must sentence we procedurally or whether is decide it Id. at 657. While a district court must consider Chapter Seven s policy statements and the statutory provisions applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), the district court need not robotically tick through every subsection, and it has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum provided by § 3583(e)(3). Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656-57; Moreover, while a district court must provide a statement of the reasons for the sentence imposed, the court need be as sentence revocation not as conviction sentence. detailed it must or specific be when when imposing imposing a a post- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). After district person court s was reviewing assertion premised upon the record, that its Smith finding 3 we conclude was that a that the very dangerous Smith s repeated pattern of disregarded committing the law. drug offenses Smith s indicated contention that that the he district court s finding was unsupported by the record is inaccurate. Thus, the district court did not procedurally err in determining Smith s sentence, which is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Smith s sentence. 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 4
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.
