US v. Eric Smith, No. 10-4721 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ERIC LAMONT SMITH, Defendant Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 a 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 a lengthy sentence for offenses underlying his supervised release violations. does not challenge the substantive sentence. 2 reasonableness the Smith of his In supervised reviewing release, a sentence this court imposed takes upon a 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 requirements of [18 the sentences. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks omitted); 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). see also Gall v. to and § 3553(a) citation applicable § 3583 [18 U.S.C.] and factors U.S.C.] revocation 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 a 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 court s remark that the flagrancy of Smith s violations evidenced the necessity of a higher sentence to promote respect for the law and provide for some deterrence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s 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 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.
