UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4419
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN THOMAS SMITH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00040-MR-5)
Submitted: November 8, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. Frederick Winiker, III, WINIKER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Smith appeals the 117-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to
commit an offense against the United States, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); one count of armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(d) (2006); and one count of
possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2006).
Counsel for Smith filed a brief in this court in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Smith was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel does not challenge the validity of Smith’s
guilty plea. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393
(4th Cir. 2002) (holding that the standard of review is plain
error where defendant fails to object before the district
court). Our review of the record reveals that the magistrate
judge complied fully with the requirements of Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11. Therefore, we hold that Smith’s guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary, and we affirm the conviction.
Counsel challenges the reasonableness of Smith’s
sentence, but does not specify any deficiencies. We review a
2
sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45
(2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir.
2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for significant
procedural error, including such errors as “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no procedural
errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). Accordingly, a
sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to
the particular facts presented and must “state in open court”
the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id.
The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must be
“sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that [the district
court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
3
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court carefully calculated the Guidelines range and
understood that it was advisory. Furthermore, it is apparent
that the court considered both parties’ arguments and had a
reasoned basis for its decision. Smith’s sentence is at the
bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table). The district
court did not commit error during sentencing.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5