US v. Steve Smith
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:05-cr-00074-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999410761].. [13-4618]
Appeal: 13-4618
Doc: 30
Filed: 08/06/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4618
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVE ROHAN SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:05-cr-00074-D-1)
Submitted:
July 28, 2014
Decided:
August 6, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W.H. Paramore, III, W.H. PARAMORE, III, P.C., Jacksonville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4618
Doc: 30
Filed: 08/06/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Steve Rohan Smith appeals his sentence of forty-eight
months’ imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his supervised
release.
Smith’s
counsel
has
filed
a
brief
pursuant
to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable.
Smith was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not
file one.
The government did not file a brief.
We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the statutory maximum and not
plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
We first consider whether the sentence
is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
this
initial
inquiry,
we
take
a
more
Id. at 438.
deferential
In
posture
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than
reasonableness
review
for
Guidelines
sentences.
United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
Only if
we find the sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is
plainly so.
Id. at 657; see also United States v. Bennett, 698
F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1506
(2013).
court
While a district court must explain its sentence, the
“need
revocation
not
be
sentence
as
detailed
as
it
or
must
2
specific
be
when
when
imposing
imposing
a
a
Appeal: 13-4618
Doc: 30
Filed: 08/06/2014
post-conviction sentence.”
Pg: 3 of 4
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence
upon
States v.
Webb,
revocation
738
of
F.3d
supervised
638,
640
(4th
release.”
Cir.
United
2013).
In
exercising such discretion the court “is guided by the Chapter
Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual, as
well as the statutory factors applicable to revocation sentences
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).”
Id. at 641.
“Chapter
Seven instructs that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, ‘the
court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust,
while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness
of
the
underlying
violator.’”
violation
and
the
criminal
history
of
the
Id. (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch.
7, pt. A(3)(b) (2012)).
The record reflects that in imposing the sentence, the
district court properly focused on Smith’s breach of trust.
The
court
considered
the
explained
the
chosen sentence, which was within the statutory maximum.
We
also
applicable
therefore
cited
the
sentencing
conclude
need
for
factors,
that
deterrence,
and
the
adequately
sentence
was
not
plainly
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
Appeal: 13-4618
Doc: 30
appeal.
We
Filed: 08/06/2014
therefore
affirm
Pg: 4 of 4
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of 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
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Smith.
facts
this
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?