Court Opinion

ID: 9918298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 16:01:35.490157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:04.935506
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2171
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                               Timothy Ray Smith

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: January 8, 2024
                             Filed: January 12, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Timothy Ray Smith began his term of supervised release on June 8, 2021,
after he completed a 72-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Approximately 16 months later, Smith began violating his supervised release
conditions related to drug use. At the final revocation hearing, Smith admitted to
drug usage—specifically the positive urinalysis and blood test results—and denied
all other allegations, including those related to his arrest arising from a car accident
on December 30, 2022.

       It is undisputed that Smith admitted to Grade C violations, which resulted in
an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. The
court began explaining its sentencing decision by focusing on Smith’s drug use and
then turned to discussing the allegations that Smith had neither admitted to nor that
the government had proven. The court imposed a 24-month sentence, stating there
must be “ramifications” for Smith’s additional unadmitted and unproven conduct.

       On appeal, Smith contends the district court improperly sentenced him based
on unadmitted and unproven conduct. The government agrees that the district court
plainly erred when it based its sentence on contested facts and requests that we
vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. We agree with the parties. See
United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a district
court commits procedural error when it bases a sentence on unproven, disputed
allegations). We vacate Smith’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-