The Honor able Ge org e C ara m Steeh, Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Eastern District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0776n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 22, 2008 No. 07-1728 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CHARL ES NECOBE SMI TH, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : GI BB ONS and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and STEEH, District Judge
. *
PER CU RI AM. Af

te r d e fe nd a nt- a

pp e lla nt C ha rl e s N e c ob e Smith p le a de d g uil ty to possessing a fire arm a s a fe lon in ex chang e for the g overnme nt dismi ssing a drug count, the district court sente nced him to 60 months in prison. Smit h mounts three cha lleng es to how the district cour t used conduc t underlying the char g ed, but later dismiss ed, drugcou n t t o ca l culate his a dvisory Sentencing Guidelines ra

ng e. F or the re asons that follow, we aff irm.
I.
Police executed a se arc h war rant and raide d Smit h’s apar tment, storming throug h the front door as Smith ran out the re ar. A s police pursue d Sm i t h , t h ey observe d him toss a flask, laterNo. 07-1728

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . Ch ar le

s Ne c ob e Sm ith

- 2 - discovere d to contain cr ack c ocaine . I n s i d e S m ith’s apar tment, office rs found more cra ck and a semiautomatic pistol. Sm ith admitted possessing the c rac k but den ie d p o s s e s s in g

th e p is tol, claiming that a fr iend left it in his apartment a nd he had no w ay

to dispose of it.
A fe de ra l g ra

nd jur y ind ic te d Sm ith for possessing a firea rm as a felon and possessing cra ck
coca ine with in t en t t o distribute. He ag ree d to plead g uilty to the firea

rm offe nse in exchang e for the g ov e rn me nt d ism iss ingthe dr ug c ount. At sente nc ing , th e dis tr ic t c ou rt —n oti ng that Smi th
a dmi tte d p os se ssi ng a t le a st 1 0 g ra ms o f c ra c k w itha n in te nt t o d is tr ibute —f ound that Smi th po s s e s s e d b o t h t h e f

i r e a r m a n d t h e c r a c k , b u t d e c l i n e d t o f i n d t h a t S m i t h u s e d t h e fi re a rm in
connec tion with drug tra fficking
. Smit h fac ed a 37- to-46-month Guidelines rang e on the firea rm offe nse, a rang e the district court wor ried did not ade quately

acc ount for Smith’s admitted involvement in drug a ctivity . Had Smit h been c onvicted of the drug offe nse, t he dis trict court noted, “ he would have been looking at [a] 60 month mini mum.” Att en t i v e t o t h is disparity betwee n the advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e that Smit h’s plea y

ielded an d t h e ra n g e that would have applied to his admitted drug possession, the district court informe d Smit h that it intende d to impose a sentenc e above the advisory rang e. The
c ourt the n p os tpo ne d s e nte nc ingto g ive Smit h a n o pp or tun ity to e va luate wh e the r t o w ith dr a w h is plea.
Smit h adher ed to his gu i l t y plea, a nd the district court sente nced him “a s if he we re f ound g uil ty of the dr ug of fe ns e ,” imp os ing60 mon ths imp ri so nme nt w iththi s c omm e nt:No. 07-1728

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . Ch ar le

s Ne c ob e Sm ith

- 3 - [T] he g uideline rang e . . . is 70 to 87 months if he just takes the drug char g e, no g un enhanc ement, and the quantity —and g ive him three points off fo r ac cepta nce [of responsibility ]. S o it’s 70-87 months. I think I s h o u l d at l east, in fa irness, . . . imp o s e a se ntence at the bottom of what the guideline ra ng e is for the amount of drug s that he had a fter g iving him ac cepta nce of responsibility , which would be 60 months incarce ration . . . .
Smit h timely

appea led.
I .I
Smit h urg es us to rema

nd for r esente ncing , argu i n g t h at t he district cour t committed a signific ant p ro ce d u ral e rror by failing to properly

calc ulate the Guide lines rang e that would have applied to the dismissed drug count. S e e U n i t e d S t a t es v . Ga ll , 1 2 8 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). Acc ording to Smi th, that rang e should have been sc ored at 57-to-71 months, not the 70- to-87 months that the district court re fer enced. T h i s ar gu ment car ries no we ight be cause Ga ll only require s “a district court [to] beg in all sentencing proce eding s by corr ectly calc ulating the applicable Guidelines rang e.” Id . at 596 (empha sis added). Smith admits that the dist rict cour t corre ctly

calc ulated the applicable rang e for

the fire arm off

ense to whic h Smit h pleade d gu i l t y . T he district cour t then proper ly exercised its discre tion to selec t a longer sentenc e that acc ounted for the conduct unde rly ing the dismissed drug count. Smith t here fore lacks a valid argument for pr ocedur al er ror.
We no t e, as S m ith concede s, that the district court intended to “ impose a sentenc e at the bo tto m of wh a t the g uid e lin e ra

ng e ” wo uld have be e n fo r the dis mis se d d ru g of fe ns e . H is 6 0- mon thNo. 07-1728

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . Ch ar le

s Ne c ob e Sm ith

- 4 - se nte nc e fa lls jus t 3 m on ths sh or t of the bo tto m of the 57 -t o- 71 ra ng e that Smith i ns ist s wou ld have applied to the drugoffe nse, mea ning that even unde r Smith’s theory , the sentenc e fits.
Smit h’s brief

also advanc ed a Six th Amendment right-to-tria l-by -jury challeng e, conte nding that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

imp e rm iss ibl y

re lie d u po n th e c on du c t un de rl y ingthe dis mis se d dru g c ount t o calc ulate his advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e. At ora l arg ument, howeve r, Smith wit hdrewthis arg ument
a nd c on c e de d th a t ou

r d e c isi on in United States v. Conway , 513 F.3d 640 ( 6th Cir. 2008), remains g ood law and a llows district courts to consider dismissed conduc t i n calc ulating a n advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. Id . at 645. This conce ssion resolves Smith’s jury -trial-r ight c laim.
Smit h’s co ncession also re solves his final argument—that the district court e rre d by char acte rizing his dr

ug possession a s “re levant conduct,” U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2, afte r it a lrea d y fo und that he did not possess the firearm “in connec tion with” drug-tr aff icking , U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)
. Smit h admits that U.S.S .G. § 5K2.21, which a llows courts to “depa rt u p wa rd t o re fl ect the a ctual seriousness of the offe nse base d on conduct . . . unde rly ing a ch ar ge d ismiss ed as pa

rt of a ple a ag ree ment,” compe ls affirming his se ntence unless courts invalidate § 5K2.21 on Six th-Amendment g ro un ds . B ut S mith’ s c on c e ssi on a t or a l argume nt—

that Conway pe rm its a

dis tr ic t co urt to u se dis mis se d c on du c t w he n c a lc ulatin g a n a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s ra ng e , 51 3 F .3 d a t 64 5— fo re c los e s th is Six th Amendment cha lleng e. The district court thus properly viewed the drug possession as rele vant
c on du c t f or se nte nc ingpurp os e s.No. 07-1728

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . Ch ar le

s Ne c ob e Sm ith

- 5 - III
. We affir m the district court’s sente nce.