USA v. Antwan Smith


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Antwan Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 16-17620 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17620 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20587-MGC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTWAN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 28, 2017) Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17620 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Antwan Smith served 70 months of imprisonment for possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction, and possessing heroin. His sentence included a three-year term of supervised release. Although he violated his supervised release by testing positive for use of controlled substances several times, the Court demonstrated leniency by sentencing him to time-served and warning him that it was his last chance. Smith disregarded that warning and violated his supervised release again by driving with a suspended license, failing to timely notify his probation officer about two arrests, and failing to attend all of his required treatment programs. He appeals the 11-month within-guideline sentence that he received for this second violation, arguing that it is substantively unreasonable. Smith’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. It is not “outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts in the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?