Case: 17-13209 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13209
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00351-WSD-JSA-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ADAM SMITH,
a.k.a. Scrap,
a.k.a. Scrappy,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 16, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13209 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Adam Smith pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(C), (D) & 846. The district court imposed a sentence of 107 months’
imprisonment, which fell within the advisory guideline range of 100–125 months.
The district court further ordered that 40 months of Mr. Smith’s sentence would be
served concurrently with his imprisonment on state charges. Mr. Smith now
appeals the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. After careful review, we
affirm.
I
We ordinarily review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence for abuse
of discretion. See United State v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194 (11th Cir.
2011). In this case, however, Mr. Smith made only a general objection to the
“imposition of sentence just to preserve any rights.” This failed to indicate an
objection to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v.
Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (“When the statement is not clear
enough to inform the district court of the legal basis for the objection, we have held
that the objection is not properly preserved.”). Therefore, we review only for plain
error. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). We
may correct a plain error only when (1) an error has occurred, (2) the error was
plain, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affected
2
Case: 17-13209 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 3 of 5
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United
States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206, 1218 (11th Cir. 2016).
II
A district court commits procedural error when it “fail[s] to calculate (or
improperly calculate[es]) the Guidelines range, treat[s] the Guidelines as
mandatory, fail[s] to consider the § 3553(a) factors, select[s] a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or fail[s] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Mr. Smith argues that the district court
committed procedural error by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Our review reveals no error, much less plain error.
When explaining its reasons for imposing sentence, we require that “the
sentencing judge [ ] set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has
considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own
legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218, 1263
(11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007))
(alteration adopted). Mr. Smith seems to contend that the district court was
required to explicitly state each of the § 3553(a) factors. We have not required that
the district court discuss each factor, so long as the district court sets forth a
sufficient explanation for a particular sentence. See McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1263.
The district court met this standard.
3
Case: 17-13209 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 4 of 5
After hearing arguments from Mr. Smith and the government and listening
to Mr. Smith’s allocution, the district court discussed the advisory guideline range
and the § 3553(a) factors. For example, the district court acknowledged the need
to deter criminal conduct, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), by stating that if Mr.
Smith was not punished, it would encourage other inmates to introduce contraband
into prison. Likewise, the district court commented on the safety risks associated
with selling drugs inside prisons, reflecting consideration of both the nature of the
offense and its seriousness. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1) & (a)(2)(A). It is also
clear that the district court considered Mr. Smith’s personal characteristics—
commenting both on Mr. Smith’s acceptance of responsibility and his attitude at
the proceeding, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)—and the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities, by considering Mr. Smith’s sentence in comparison to those of
his co-defendants, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district court explicitly
weighed these factors and explained that they called for a sentence somewhere in
the middle of the advisory guideline range. And, after completing that discussion,
the district court stated that it had “applied all the [§] 3553(a) factors and
[considered] what would be fair and reasonable in [Mr. Smith’s] case.” Taken
together, this is a sufficient explanation for Mr. Smith’s 107-month sentence. See
McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1263 (“The district court’s acknowledgment that it
considered the defendants’ arguments at sentencing and that it considered the
4
Case: 17-13209 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 5 of 5
factors set forth in § 3553(a) alone is sufficient explanation for a particular
sentence.”).
III
Because Mr. Smith has failed to show that the district court committed
procedural error, we affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5