Filed: May 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEE SMITH, a/k/a Lee Ernest Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00387-CCE-1) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 8, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa A.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEE SMITH, a/k/a Lee Ernest Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00387-CCE-1) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 8, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa A. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEE SMITH, a/k/a Lee Ernest Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00387-CCE-1)
Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 8, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa A. Kennedy, LAW OFFICES OF THERESA A. KENNEDY, LLC,
Washington, New Jersey, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Smith pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) and received a 180-month sentence of imprisonment.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Smith’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary and whether the district court imposed a reasonable
sentence. Smith filed a pro se supplemental brief also
challenging his guilty plea and the reasonableness of his
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Prior to accepting a plea, a trial court must conduct
a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and
determines that the defendant comprehends, the nature of the
charge to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum
penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the rights
he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
1991). Additionally, the district court must ensure that the
defendant’s plea was supported by an independent factual basis,
was voluntary, and did not result from force or threats. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)-(3);
DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. Because
Smith did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise
preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, this Court reviews his
2
plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002); see Henderson v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013) (discussing plain error standard).
Our review of the record indicates that the district
court strictly complied with Rule 11 in accepting Smith’s plea.
Accordingly, we conclude that Smith’s plea was knowing and
voluntary and was supported by an adequate factual basis, and,
consequently, that the plea was final and binding. See United
States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46 (2007). The Court first reviews for significant
procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error,
it then considers substantive reasonableness.
Id. at 51.
Procedural error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and failing
to explain adequately the selected sentence.
Id. The district
court must make an “individualized assessment” by applying the
relevant § 3553(a) factors to the case’s specific circumstances.
United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The
individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but
it must be adequate to allow meaningful appellate review.
Id.
at 330. Substantive reasonableness is determined by considering
3
the totality of the circumstances, and if the sentence is within
the properly-calculated Guidelines range, this Court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
In imposing Smith’s sentence, the district court
correctly calculated the Guidelines range and specifically
considered both the advisory nature of the Guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, we conclude that Smith’s
180-month sentence, which was the statutory minimum sentence, is
both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and the issues Smith raised in his supplemental brief and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Smith’s conviction and sentence. This Court requires that
counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
