Filed: Mar. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD ROBERTS SMITH, aka Boy, aka Ronald Lloyd Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00982-PMD) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD ROBERTS SMITH, aka Boy, aka Ronald Lloyd Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00982-PMD) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4820
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD ROBERTS SMITH, aka Boy, aka Ronald
Lloyd Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00982-PMD)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. John Charles Duane, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Roberts Smith appeals his conviction and 120-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea for possession with
the intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine and cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and
841(b)(1)(C) (2000). Smith’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questions whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Smith’s guilty plea and whether the sentence was
reasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Smith has not done so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Smith did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, therefore this court reviews his challenge to the
adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States
v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting
a guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the defendant
understands the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory
minimum and maximum sentences, and other various rights, so it is
clear that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his
plea. The court must also determine whether there is a factual
basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1), (3); United States
v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Counsel does
- 2 -
not specify any deficiencies in the district court’s Rule 11
inquiry, and our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that
the court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured
Smith’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily.
Smith also contends his sentence is unreasonable.
However, the district court appropriately treated the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the
advisory guideline range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d
540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Smith’s 120-month sentence, which is
the statutory minimum and below the applicable guideline range of
262 to 327 months, is therefore presumptively reasonable. See
United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006); see also
Rita v. United States,
127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007) (approving
presumption of reasonableness accorded sentences within properly
calculated guideline range). We discern no basis in this case to
find that the presumption of reasonableness has been overcome.
Moreover, Smith’s sentence comports with the terms of his plea
agreement, notably the government’s request for a large downward
departure resulting in the sentence below the guideline range.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Smith’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his
client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
- 3 -
the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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
- 4 -