US v. Leon Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00172-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999907664]. [16-4084]

Appeal: 16-4084

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEON EUGENE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00172-1)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Decided:

August 10, 2016

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, David R. Bungard, Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston,
West
Virginia,
for
Appellant.
Carol A. Casto, Acting United States Attorney,
Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4084

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Leon
upon

Eugene

his

plea

Smith
of

convicted felon.
We

review

substantive

guilty

to

the

60-month

possession

of

sentence
a

imposed

firearm

by

a

Finding no error, we affirm.
Smith’s

sentence

reasonableness

discretion standard.”
(2007).

appeals

for

“under

both

a

procedural

deferential

and

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

We must ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Sentencing

Guidelines

range.

Id.

at

51.

If

there

is

no

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive

reasonableness

under

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.”

Id.

Smith raises no claim of procedural error but argues that
the district court erred by varying upward from the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment.
The district court thoroughly explained its decision that, given
Smith’s

history

and

sufficient

but

goals

deterrence,

of

not

characteristics,
greater

than

promoting

protecting the public.

a

60-month

necessary
respect

for

was

accomplish

the

the

to

sentence

and

law,

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).

Our

review of the record convinces us that the district court did
not

abuse

its

discretion

in

so
2

finding

and

that,

therefore,

Appeal: 16-4084

Smith’s

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/10/2016

sentence

is

both

Pg: 3 of 3

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3