Court Opinion

ID: 9396885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:37.580793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.980794
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505      Doc: 21         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4505

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CARLOS EDWIN SMITH, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00195-WO-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John D. Bryson, WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Angela H.
        Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505      Doc: 21         Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Carlos Edwin Smith, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to felon

        in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district

        court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 105 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

        Smith argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because

        the court failed to properly consider Smith’s adverse childhood experiences in fashioning

        his sentence. We affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

        outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877

        F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). “If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the

        circumstances. United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th. Cir. 2020) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               To assess procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly

        calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, adequately considered

        the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained the selected sentence, and addressed

        any nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence. United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d

        213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). A “district court[ ] need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s

        every subsection.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). The sentencing explanation need not be extensive, but it must

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505       Doc: 21        Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        demonstrate that the district court had “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal

        decision-making authority.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 218 (internal quotation marks omitted).

              On appeal, Smith argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the

        district court failed to consider Smith’s adverse childhood experiences as an independent

        mitigating sentencing factor under § 3553(a). ∗ However, the district court considered

        Smith’s adverse childhood experiences under § 3553(a)(1) as part of the “history and

        characteristics of the defendant.” The district court ultimately concluded that while

        Smith’s attorney had articulated good points concerning Smith’s adverse childhood

        experiences, other aspects of Smith’s background and the underlying offense were more

        persuasive in informing Smith’s sentence.        We conclude that Smith’s sentence is

        procedurally reasonable.

              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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

              ∗
                  Smith does not lodge a separate substantive reasonableness challenge on appeal.

                                                     3