UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC LAMONT SMITH,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00306-RLW)

Submitted: May 3, 2011 Decided: May 26, 2011

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. 

MacBride, United States Attorney, Roderick C. Young, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Lamont Smith was convicted of possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He served his active sentence 

and was released to supervision on January 30, 2008. After 

learning Smith had been arrested on additional drug and firearm 

charges, his probation officer petitioned the district court to 

revoke supervised release. Smith admitted the violations, and 

the district court sentenced him to sixty months’ imprisonment, 

the top of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

Smith challenges the procedural reasonableness of his 

supervised release sentence. He argues that the district court 

failed to adequately consider the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006). He contends that the district court stated no 

particularized reason why the sentence selected was no greater 

than necessary, and he argues that the district court failed to 

consider that Smith had received a lengthy sentence for the 

offenses underlying his supervised release violations. Smith 

does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence.

(2009) policy 

statement range. Smith noted a timely appeal.
3

In reviewing a sentence imposed upon revocation of 

supervised release, this court “takes a more ‘deferential 

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of 

discretion’ than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines 

sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 

(4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 

439 (4th Cir. 2006)). Because Smith did not request a sentence 

different than the one ultimately imposed, his sentence is 

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Thompson, 

595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lynn, 

592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, 

Smith “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; 

and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v. 

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).

We review the sentence for significant procedural 

error, including such errors as improperly calculating the 

policy statement range, failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence, and failing to “consider the helpful assistance 

contained in the [USSG] Chapter 7 policy statements along with 

the statutory requirements of [18 U.S.C.] § 3583 and the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors applicable to revocation 

sentences.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted); see also Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A court need not be as detailed or 
4

specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when 

imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still ‘must provide 

a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.’” Thompson, 

595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656).

We conclude that the district court adequately 

explained the sentence imposed. “[W]hen a judge decides simply 

to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not 

necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Here, Smith made no argument 

for a particular sentence, and only asked that the district 

court consider that he had received a fourteen-year sentence for 

the offenses comprising his supervised release violation. The 

district court clearly considered and rejected this argument, as 

reflected by the court’s remark that the flagrancy of Smith’s 

violations evidenced the necessity of a higher sentence “to 

promote respect for the law and provide for some deterrence.” 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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