Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01849/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01849-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1849

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Lorenzo Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 27, 2007

Filed: July 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Smith (Smith) appeals the 87-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after Smith pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a mixture or substance

containing more than 100 kilograms of a detectable amount of marijuana. For

reversal, he argues that his sentence at the top of his Guidelines range was

unreasonable in light of mitigating factors, and that the standard used by the district

court in applying a 2-level weapon enhancement under the Guidelines was

unconstitutional. 

Appellate Case: 06-1849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327380
-2-

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Smith to 87 months in prison. See United States v. Haack,

403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

We afford a presumption of reasonableness to the district court’s sentence, which was

within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, No. 06-

5754, 2007 WL 1772146, at *6-9 (U.S. June 21, 2007) (affirming the application of

a presumption of reasonableness by a court of appeals to a district court’s sentence

that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines); United States v.

Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050, 1056 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding sentences within the

applicable Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable). The district court

appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, weighing any mitigating

factors against the seriousness of Smith’s offense and his criminal history. See

Mickelson, 433 F.3d at 1056 (deciding a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range

is not unreasonable where the district court considered the offense to be very serious

and discounted the importance of defendant’s mitigating factors). 

Regarding the 2-level weapon enhancement, we further conclude the district

court did not clearly err in finding a connection between the guns and the offense was

not improbable. See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1016-17 (8th Cir.

2007) (“Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines authorizes a two-level

enhancement if the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon, including a firearm, in

connection with a drug offense ‘unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was

connected with the offense.’” (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.3)); United States v.

Lopez, 416 F.3d 713, 715 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); United States v. Payne,

81 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding a connection between guns and the offense

is shown where weapons are found in same location where drugs or drug

paraphernalia are stored or where part of conspiracy takes place); United States v.

Betz, 82 F.3d 205, 210-11 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding an enhancement where firearms

were not found in the same shed as marijuana, but were elsewhere on defendant’s

property). Smith’s challenge to the constitutionality of the weapon enhancement

Appellate Case: 06-1849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327380
-3-

standard is foreclosed because he did not raise the issue in the district court. See

Payne, 81 F.3d at 764 (holding a due process challenge to the “unless clearly

improbable” standard used for weapon enhancement was not properly before the

appellate court where the argument was not made in the district court). 

Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1849 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327380