US v. Jake Smith, No. 12-4905 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAKE SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00060-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jake Smith appeals from his conviction and 151-month sentence imposed agreement to distribution after one of he count cocaine pled of guilty aiding hydrochloride pursuant and to within 1000 plea in abetting a the feet of a protected location, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006); 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 840(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860 (West 1999 & Supp. 2012). Smith s sole argument on appeal is that his below-Guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012). We reject Smith s argument and affirm the district court s judgment. We review Smith s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, consideration 133 S. of Ct. both 216 (2012). the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d This review and requires substantive Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines considered presented the by § the selected sentence. range, 3553(a) parties, we must factors, and decide whether analyzed sufficiently the the court arguments explained the Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575 76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] circumstances[.] into account the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. totality of the If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2010). Where the district court imposes a departure or variant sentence, we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect range. to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, and need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (brackets omitted). Smith asks us to vacate his sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing. him as a career offender circumstances of his case. According to Smith, sentencing was unnecessary given the We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties arguments and conclude that the district 3 court properly exercised arguments in mitigation. its discretion to reject Smith s See United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679-80 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that appellate courts must give due deference to district court s broad discretion in determining weight to be given to § 3553(a) factors when choosing an appropriate sentence); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 162 (4th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that deference to a district court s sentence is required because the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case ) (brackets omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
