US v. James Smith, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00870-RBH-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998489754] [09-5207]

Download PDF
US v. James Smith, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 09-5207 Document: 36 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5207 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES CHINA SMITH, JR., a/k/a JJ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00870-RBH-3) Submitted: November 30, 2010 SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 22, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before KING and Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 09-5207 Document: 36 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: James China Smith, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base. to a government At his sentencing hearing, Smith objected who testified regarding The Smith's court witness a statements following polygraph examination. overruled the objection, noting that it was not relying on the results from the polygraph, but was relying on statements made by Smith himself after being informed that he had failed the examination. Smith told the examiner that he had lied about whether he had continued to engage in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine while on bond. ineligible 3553(f) for a Thus, the court found that Smith was valve reduction. Guidelines See 18 U.S.C. ("USSG") safety U.S. (2006); Sentencing Manual 5C1.2 (2009). We discretion do in not find on that the district court abused its his relying Smith's statements following polygraph examination. United States v. Hopkins, 310 F.3d 145, Sentencing 154 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing review standard). courts are given wider latitude on evidentiary matters because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing. Evidence may be considered at sentencing as long as it Id. has sufficient indicia of reliability, see USSG 6A1.3(a), p.s., including hearsay statements. See 2 United States v. Wilkinson, Case: 09-5207 Document: 36 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 3 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that "a sentencing court may give weight to any relevant information before it, including uncorroborated hearsay, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy") (citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm Smith's sentence. with oral argument presented as in the the facts and legal before We dispense are and contentions the court adequately materials argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?