US v. Kevin Smith, No. 13-6560 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEVIN MAURICE SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00369-NCT-1) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Maurice Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Maurice Smith appeals the district court s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and reducing his sentence from life to 360 months. Smith asserts that he is entitled to a further reduction of sentence based on Amendment 591 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and because the district court erred in failing to consider his post-conviction rehabilitative conduct. We find both arguments unavailing. district court applied Guidelines Smith s sentence as Guidelines Manual much as Amendment possible § 1B1.10(b)(2) 750 under and U.S. (2012). The reduced Sentencing Amendment 591 requires that the initial selection of the offense guideline be based only on the statute or offense of conviction rather than on judicial findings of actual conduct not made by the jury. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005). Because Smith was sentenced under the correct offense guideline for his convicted offenses, the Amendment entitles him to no further relief. district court. facts and materials legal before Accordingly, We dispense we with affirm oral the argument contentions are adequately this and argument court order of the because the presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.