United States v. Andrew Curtis Smith, No. 06-2457 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - sentencing. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2457 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Andrew Curtis Smith, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 27, 2007 Filed: August 1, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Andrew Curtis Smith (Smith) appeals the 46-month prison sentence the district court imposed after Smith pled guilty to transporting child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). For reversal, he argues his sentence which was at the bottom of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range was unreasonable upon due consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 1 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We disagree. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (discussing appellate review for unreasonableness). The record shows the district court properly considered the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, the nature of the offense, sentencing objectives, and Smith s history and circumstances (including Smith s lack of a criminal record, age and several positive letters written on Smith s behalf). We see no basis to conclude the sentence is unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (discussing the application of the presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence that reflected the proper application of the advisory Guidelines); United States v. Harris, __ F.3d __, __, No. 06-2892, 2007 WL 1964651, at *3 (8th Cir. July 9, 2007) (concluding sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable). Accordingly, the judgment is 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.
