United States v. Donte Smith

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4604

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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), Smith’s counsel filed a brief

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but

questioning whether Smith’s sentence is substantively

reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Smith has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has

declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we

affirm.

We review the district court’s sentence, “whether

inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines

range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a

sentence for substantive reasonableness, we “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.

Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216–17 (4th Cir. 2010). “Such a

presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

[(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306

2
(4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421

(2014). Smith has failed to rebut the presumption of

reasonableness this court affords his within-Guidelines

sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of his 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, 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