UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4419

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN THOMAS SMITH,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (3:09-cr-00040-MR-5)

Submitted: November 8, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. Frederick Winiker, III, WINIKER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Smith appeals the 117-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to 

commit an offense against the United States, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); one count of armed bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(d) (2006); and one count of 

possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2006). 

Counsel for Smith filed a brief in this court in accordance with 

Anders v. California

Counsel does not challenge the validity of Smith’s 

guilty plea. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 

(4th Cir. 2002) (holding that the standard of review is plain 

error where defendant fails to object before the district 

court). Our review of the record reveals that the magistrate 

judge complied fully with the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11. Therefore, we hold that Smith’s guilty 

plea was knowing and voluntary, and we affirm the conviction.

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there 

are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, but questioning whether 

the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Smith was 

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but 

did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Counsel challenges the reasonableness of Smith’s 

sentence, but does not specify any deficiencies. We review a 
3

sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45 

(2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 

2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for significant 

procedural error, including such errors as “failing to calculate 

(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the 

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the 

Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no procedural 

errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must 

make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). Accordingly, a 

sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to 

the particular facts presented and must “state in open court” 

the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. 

The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must be 

“sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that [the district 

court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned 
4

basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” 

United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).

We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district 

court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The 

district court carefully calculated the Guidelines range and 

understood that it was advisory. Furthermore, it is apparent 

that the court considered both parties’ arguments and had a 

reasoned basis for its decision. Smith’s sentence is at the 

bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table). The district 

court did not commit error during sentencing.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire 

record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Smith.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
5

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED