US v. Donald Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00241-NCT-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998699314].. [10-4488]

Appeal: 10-4488

Document: 32

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4488

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD TODD SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00241-NCT-3)

Submitted:

September 30, 2011

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 13, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4488

Document: 32

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Donald Todd Smith pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).

The

district court sentenced Smith as a career offender to a belowGuidelines sentence of 196 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal,

Smith’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

stating

that,

there are no meritorious issues for appeal.

in

his

view,

Counsel questions

the reasonableness of Smith’s sentence but points to no specific
error.

Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we

affirm.
This

court

reviews

a

district

court’s

sentence

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

for

Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley,
requires

511

F.3d

468,

appellate

473-74

(4th

consideration

Cir.

of

both

substantive reasonableness of a sentence.

2007).

This

review

the

procedural

and

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
this

court

reviews

the

substantive
2

Id.

reasonableness

Finally,
of

the

Appeal: 10-4488

Document: 32

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

Page: 3 of 4

sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216

§ 3553(a).”

(4th Cir. 2010).
Here,

the

district

court

followed

the

necessary

procedural steps in sentencing Smith by properly calculating the
Guidelines range, * considering the § 3553(a) factors, adequately
explaining

the

chosen

sentence,

and

sentencing

Smith

to

a

sentence of 196 months—some sixty-six months below the bottom of
his

advisory

departure

Guidelines

based

upon

his

range

as

a

substantial

result

of

assistance.

a

downward
Hence,

we

conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Smith in writing of the right to

*

Although we note that one of the felony convictions on
which the district court relied to classify Smith as a career
offender does not qualify as a felony under our recent decision
in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en
banc), Smith still qualifies as a career offender by virtue of
his 1989 conviction for misdemeanor assault of a female that, at
the time he committed the offense, was punishable by two years’
imprisonment.

3

Appeal: 10-4488

Document: 32

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

Supreme

Court

of

the

Page: 4 of 4

petition

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Smith.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4