Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04593/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04593-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Henry Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4593

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES HENRY SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-JAB-1)

Submitted: February 4, 2008 Decided: March 14, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth R. Cohen, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, L.L.P., Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4593 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/14/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Henry Smith appeals his 168-month sentence for

armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2000), and

carrying and using firearms during and in relation to a crime of

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2000).

Smith contends that the district court erred, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2000), by failing to discuss U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual (“USSG”) § 5G1.3(c) (2006) when it imposed Smith’s sentence

to run consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, his

undischarged state prison sentence for nearly contemporaneous

conduct.

Ordinarily, we review legal questions involving the

application of a sentencing guideline de novo. United States v.

Mosley, 200 F.3d 218, 221 (4th Cir. 1999). Where a defendant

argues on appeal that a district court erred in its consideration

of § 5G1.3, but the defendant does not cite § 5G1.3 or argue that

he was entitled to a concurrent sentence in the district court, we

review only for plain error. United States v. Rouse, 362 F.3d 256,

260 (4th Cir. 2004). Smith argued before the district court that

he should be given a concurrent sentence, but did not specifically

cite § 5G1.3. Smith has not demonstrated error under either

standard of review.

We “presume in non-departures, unless some contrary

indication exists, that a district court properly considered the

Appeal: 07-4593 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/14/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

pertinent statutory factors.” United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d

115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998). “A court need not engage in ritualistic

incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal

issue,” where “the district court rules on issues that have been

fully presented for determination. Consideration is implicit in

the court’s ultimate ruling.” United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,

642 (4th Cir. 1995). Smith argued in the district court that he

should be given a sentence that would run concurrently with his

state prison sentence, and the district court rejected this

argument, stating that it had considered the relevant statutory

factors. Although the district court did not specifically discuss

§ 5G1.3(c) at the sentencing hearing, this provision was cited in

the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), and the court stated

that it had considered the evidence in the PSR as well as the

arguments presented at the hearing. Accordingly, we can fairly

infer that the district court considered § 5G1.3(c), and Smith has

not shown any error.

Smith also argues that his sentence is unreasonable under

§ 3553(a) because the district court did not discuss § 5G1.3(c) and

because it imposed a sentence that runs consecutively to his state

prison sentence. We review the sentence to determine whether it is

reasonable, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. ___, 2007 WL 4292116, *7 (U.S. Dec. 10,

2007) (No. 06-7949). We presume that a sentence imposed within the

Appeal: 07-4593 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/14/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
- 4 -

properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. United

States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006); See Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007). A district court

must explain the sentence it imposes sufficiently for this court to

effectively review its reasonableness, but need not mechanically

discuss all the factors listed in § 3553(a). United States v.

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006). The court’s

explanation should indicate that it considered the § 3553(a)

factors and the arguments raised by the parties. Id. We do not

evaluate the adequacy of the district court’s explanation “in a

vacuum,” but also consider “[t]he context surrounding a district

court’s explanation.” Id. at 381.

We presume that Smith’s sentence within the properly

calculated guidelines range is reasonable, and Smith has not

overcome that presumption. Although the district court did not

discuss the § 3553(a) factors, it stated that it considered the

statutory factors, the arguments raised by the parties, and the

advisory guidelines range as calculated in the PSR, in determining

Smith’s sentence. The district court considered Smith’s argument

that he was serving a significant sentence in state court for

conduct related to the present offenses and his contention that he

should be given a sentence that would run concurrently with his

state prison term. The court also considered the evidence in the

PSR, which noted that Smith has many prior convictions, including

Appeal: 07-4593 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/14/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

several for violent crimes in recent years. Accordingly, the

district court reasonably determined within its discretion that the

nature of Smith’s offenses justified imposing his federal sentence

to run consecutively to the undischarged state prison term.

We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4593 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/14/2008 Pg: 5 of 5