Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02457/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Curtis Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2457

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Andrew Curtis Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2007

Filed: August 1, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Curtis Smith (Smith) appeals the 46-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed after Smith pled guilty to transporting child pornography, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). For reversal, he argues his sentence–which was at the

bottom of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range–was unreasonable

upon due consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Appellate Case: 06-2457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2007 Entry ID: 3335949
-2-

We disagree. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005)

(discussing appellate review for unreasonableness). The record shows the district

court properly considered the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, the nature of the

offense, sentencing objectives, and Smith’s history and circumstances (including

Smith’s lack of a criminal record, age and several positive letters written on Smith’s

behalf). We see no basis to conclude the sentence is unreasonable. See Rita v. United

States, __ U.S. __, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (discussing the application of

the presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence that reflected the proper

application of the advisory Guidelines); United States v. Harris, __ F.3d __, __, No.

06-2892, 2007 WL 1964651, at *3 (8th Cir. July 9, 2007) (concluding sentence within

advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2007 Entry ID: 3335949