Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Smith, 04-4659 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-4659 Visitors: 30
Filed: Apr. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4659 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADAM SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-04-60) Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defende
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4659 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADAM SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-04-60) Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Adam Smith pled guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute heroin and was sentenced to fifteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Thereafter, the district court alternatively gave Smith the same sentence without considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Smith objects to the imposition of his alternative sentence. Smith, however, does not challenge the propriety of his Guideline sentence; thus, any error in his alternative sentence is moot. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s conviction and 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 - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer