Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Michael SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-18
Citations: 22 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 01-4704
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Michael SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 283–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Michael SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4704.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2001.
Decided Dec. 18, 2001.
Max H. White, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
William Michael Smith pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). Because Smith had three prior violent felony convictions, the district court imposed the statutory minimum fifteen year term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West 2000). On appeal, Smith argues that the court erred by not departing below the statutory minimum sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A sentencing court may not depart below a statutory mandatory minimum sentence unless the government moves for such a departure based upon substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(e) (West 2000); United States v. Patterson, 38 F.3d 139, 146 n. 8 (4th Cir.1994), or under the safety valve provision. See 18 U.S .C.A. § 3553(f) (West 2000). Because neither of these provisions apply in the instant case, the district court did not err by declining to depart below the fifteen year statutory minimum term of imprisonment. See United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1000, 121 S.Ct. 500, 148 L.Ed.2d 470 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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.