US v. Robert Smith
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00166-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4283]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
ROBERT LEE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00166-WO-1)
November 29, 2016
December 22, 2016
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Robert Lee Smith appeals from his conviction and 106-month
sentence entered pursuant to the jury verdict finding him guilty
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues but
raising the issue of whether Smith’s sentence is substantively
Smith filed a pro se supplemental brief stating
that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
On appeal, counsel contends that the district court erred
by not giving sufficient weight to Smith’s age and cognitive
Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
We presume that a sentence
within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that
Pg: 3 of 4
reasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors, and we
must give due deference to the court’s reasoned and reasonable
See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367
(4th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
district court specifically considered the factors relied upon
by Smith and balanced them against the other factors to arrive
at a sentence below that argued for by the Government.
Smith provides no reason why his age and alcohol abuse should
outweigh his dangerous, repetitive criminal behavior.
appropriate in this case.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Smith contends that he
received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
“It is well established that a defendant may raise a claim of
direct appeal if and only if it conclusively appears from the
United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014).
Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance claims should be
raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012),
in order to permit sufficient development of the record.
Pg: 4 of 4
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
conclusively appear on the record.
record in the case for meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence.
court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Smith.
We dispense with oral argument because the
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?