US v. Smith: Long ago (it’s unclear precisely when), Smith was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. He received the then-mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months, above the otherwise applicable Guideline range of 188 to 235 months. He sought relief under the First Step Act. The Government agreed that Smith was eligible for relief (his mandatory minimum had dropped to 120 months), but argued that he should not get it. The district court ultimately recalculated the advisory Guideline range as 130 to 162 months in prison, but noted that his 240-month sentence was still within the statutory maximum (life) for the offense. Noting that the amount of crack attributable to Smith was just below the new threshold for the 240-month mandatory minimum, as well as its “strong suspicion” that Smith played a role in an informant’s murder, the district court denied Smith’s motion.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Smith’s First Step Act motion. Smith argued, under plain error, that his newly applicable Guideline range was even lower than that calculated by the district court, but the court held that was incorrect – the applicable Guideline range was actually 151 to 188 months, even higher than the one used by the district court. Given that determination, there was “no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the court recognized its mistake.” The court also concluded that Smith’s 240-month sentence remained substantively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, even though the district court did not note that the sentence was now an upward variance, rather than the minimum required by law. As to the “strong suspicion” of Smith’s involvement in a murder, the court noted that the district court also stated that it “was not convinced that the evidence was sufficient to implicate” Smith.
No comments:
Post a Comment