United States v. Keith Smith
695 F. App'x 854
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Akron police executed a search warrant at Keith Smith’s home after a controlled narcotics purchase allegedly linked to that residence; officers found drugs and firearms.
- Smith was indicted for possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841) and possession of a firearm as a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Before trial Smith moved to suppress the evidence and requested an evidentiary and Franks hearing, claiming the controlled buy never occurred and the affidavit was false or insufficient. The district court denied suppression and declined a Franks hearing as Smith’s allegations were conclusory.
- Smith pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling (counsel did not file a written Rule 11(a)(2) preservation). The district court noted the reservation on the record.
- Smith was sentenced to 96 months (top of Guidelines) and three years’ supervised release with standard conditions; he appealed both the suppression ruling and parts of his sentence and supervised-release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / probable cause and need for Franks hearing | The warrant lacked probable cause because the controlled buy and surveillance at Smith’s residence never occurred; alleged affidavit inaccuracies justify Franks hearing | Affidavit described a reliable single informant linking Smith to drug sales at his residence; allegations were conclusory and failed to show falsity or lack of nexus | No plain error. Warrant sufficiently described premises and established nexus; Franks hearing not warranted. |
| Preservation of right to appeal suppression ruling (Rule 11(a)(2)) | Oral reservation at plea hearing preserved right to appeal despite no written reservation | Government argues written preservation under Rule 11(a)(2) required; silence by government may or may not suffice | Court did not resolve preservation issue because suppression claim fails on merits; noted Rule 11(a)(2) noncompliance risk but declined to rely on it. |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | District court overemphasized criminal history, failing to adequately consider other § 3553(a) factors, rendering sentence unreasonable | Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors (history, characteristics, substance abuse) and focus on criminal history/deterrence was warranted by prior failures to reform | No reversible error. Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable. |
| Vagueness and mens rea challenges to supervised-release Conditions 6, 8, 9 | Condition 6 (10-day notice) is vague; Conditions 8 (avoid places with illegal drugs) and 9 (no association with criminals or felons) lack mens rea and could impose strict liability | Conditions supply ascertainable standards; district court or local policy clarifies knowledge requirement; not ripe for facial invalidation | No reversible constitutional defect. Condition 6 not unconstitutionally vague as-applied claim premature; Conditions 8 and 9 read to require knowledge (mitigating strict liability concern). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) (plain-error review standard for new arguments on appeal)
- United States v. Durk, 149 F.3d 464 (6th Cir.) (warrant need not be technically perfect if premises are reasonably identifiable)
- United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.) (informant reliability can be shown by past reliable information)
- United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (nexus between residence and illegal activity sufficient for search)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (standards for establishing nexus in search affidavits)
- United States v. Cummins, 912 F.2d 98 (6th Cir.) (standards for granting evidentiary hearings on affidavits)
- United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559 (6th Cir.) (weighting a single factor does not automatically make a sentence substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Shultz, 733 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.) (supervised-release condition need not enumerate every application; ascertainable standard suffices)
- United States v. Kingsley, 241 F.3d 828 (6th Cir.) (facial vagueness challenges premature when based on contingent hypotheticals)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (U.S.) (mens rea concerns in vagueness analysis)