United States v. George Smith
701 F. App'x 239
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant George Jack Smith was convicted by a jury of: possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841), possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and using/ carrying/ discharging a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- District court found Smith to be a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1(a) based on a prior Maryland conspiracy-to-robbery conviction and calculated a higher Guidelines range.
- The court sentenced Smith to 264 months’ imprisonment; it also announced it would have imposed the same 264-month sentence even without the career-offender enhancement.
- On appeal Smith argued the prior Maryland conspiracy conviction is not a "crime of violence" under USSG § 4B1.2(a), so the career-offender enhancement was improper and the Guidelines range was overstated.
- The Fourth Circuit applied an assumed-error harmlessness inquiry rather than deciding the Guidelines issue on the merits and evaluated whether the upward variance (19 months above the non-career range) was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s prior Maryland conspiracy-to-robbery conviction is a "crime of violence" for career-offender status | Smith: prior conviction is not a crime of violence, so career-offender enhancement should not apply | Government: prior conviction qualifies, so enhancement is proper | Court assumed possible error but did not decide; proceeded to harmlessness analysis and affirmed sentence |
| Whether any Guidelines-calculation error is harmless | Smith: disparity between ranges makes error not harmless | Government: district court would have imposed same sentence; upward variance justified by § 3553(a) factors | Court: harmless — district court stated it would impose same 264 months without enhancement and variance is substantively reasonable |
| Whether a 19-month upward variance is substantively reasonable | Smith: variance exceeds non-career Guidelines and is unjustified | Government: § 3553(a) factors (dangerous conduct, criminal history, parole status, deterrence, public safety) justify variance | Court: deference to district court; detailed § 3553(a) reasoning supports the variance; affirmed |
| Whether appellate court should disturb district court’s sentencing discretion | Smith: a different sentence would be appropriate | Government: no abuse of discretion given explanation and factors | Court: no abuse of discretion; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (permits assumed-error harmlessness inquiry on Guidelines issues)
- United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2017) (two-part test for assumed-error harmlessness)
- United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (harmlessness standard requires certainty that requirements are met)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentences; deferential standard)
- United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (review of reasonableness for variant sentences)
- United States v. Spencer, 848 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2017) (no need for extraordinary circumstances to justify a variance)
- United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2010) (deference to district court’s § 3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015) (upholding significant variances supported by § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirming large upward variance under assumed-error framework)
- United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming upward variance under assumed-error analysis)