US v. Nathan Smith
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHAN L. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00004-4-4)
April 1, 2010
May 20, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz, L. Anna Forbes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Nathan L. Smith appeals the district court's order
denying a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) based on the amendments to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. The district court concluded that,
because Smith was sentenced as a career offender, his sentencing range was unchanged as a result of the amendments. Smith argues the district court erred in denying On appeal, a sentence
reduction based on his designation as a career offender and that his due process filed a rights were violated taking a because his appointed position,"
contrary to Smith's best interests, and Smith did not have an opportunity to brief the district court directly. Smith maintains that he had a reasonable Specifically, that his
appointed attorney would (1) inform him what she would file; and (2) take a position that might represent Smith's efforts to
obtain a shorter sentence.
Smith contends that he was only
notified of his attorney's representation and position when he received a copy of her response and, by that time, the court had already made a ruling. to notify the He complains that he had no opportunity court that he disagreed with his
We review the district court's denial of a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2 § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of
discretion. Cir. 2010). crack
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th A defendant whose offense of conviction involved is eligible for a reduced sentence only if
Amendment 706 lowers the defendant's applicable guideline range. See United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 182 (2009). fact that he was was designated derived a Smith does not contest the offender and that his
offender guideline. range was "based
He argues, however, that his sentencing at least in part, the crack cocaine
guideline. A district court, however, lacks the authority to
grant a motion for a reduced sentence under Amendment 706 if the defendant seeking the reduction was sentenced pursuant to the career offender provision. 183, 187, 192 (4th Cir. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 2010) (describing circumstances, not
applicable here, where a defendant's career offender designation does not bar a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on
We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the To the
district court's denial of a reduction of sentence.
extent Smith argues the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applies to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, this court has expressly rejected this contention. United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 252-55 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). We need not consider the merits of Smith's due process argument because any error in denying a reduction without first giving Smith an opportunity to consult with counsel and be heard directly was harmless. have been correctly It is clear that the reduction would denied in any event because Smith's
designation as a career offender precluded a sentence reduction in his case. 528, 537 (4th See generally United States v. Taylor, 414 F.3d Cir. 2005) (rejecting defendant's due process
right to be heard claim in a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 proceeding based on Taylor's failure to show trial court abused its
discretion in refusing to conduct evidentiary hearing and ruling on the motion in the absence of a written response from him). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order We
denying Smith a reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2). dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?