United States v. Donte Smith, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Donte Smith, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE LEE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00017-CCE-1)
Submitted:
February 25, 2015
Decided:
March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donte
Lee
Smith
appeals
his
eighty-month
sentence
imposed after he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
possession of ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012).
In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Smiths counsel filed a brief
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning
reasonable.
whether
Smiths
sentence
is
substantively
Although notified of his right to do so, Smith has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has
declined
to
file
responsive
brief.
Finding
no
error,
we
affirm.
We
review
the
district
courts
sentence,
whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range[,]
under
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
sentence
for
substantive
reasonableness,
we
standard.
In reviewing a
examine[]
the
totality of the circumstances, and, if the sentence is within
the properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
United States v.
MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 21617 (4th Cir. 2010).
Such a
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable
when
[(2012)] factors.
measured
against
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
2
(4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014).
Smith
reasonableness
has
this
failed
court
to
rebut
affords
the
his
presumption
of
within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
This
We
court
requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of his right to
petition
review.
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Smith.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
