United States v. Patrick Willie Smith
698 F. App'x 599
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patrick Smith convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment.
- The district court relied on Smith’s presentence investigation report (PSR), which listed three prior serious drug convictions (arrest dates: Feb. 24, 1998; June 12, 1998; Oct. 23, 2000) and 35 prior convictions total.
- The PSR’s facts produced an Armed Career Criminal enhancement under § 924(e), yielding a mandatory 15-year minimum and guideline range of 180–210 months.
- After sentencing, the court asked the parties if they wished to state anything; no clear objection was made about the temporal distinctness of the prior drug convictions.
- Smith later challenged on appeal (1) that the district court failed to elicit objections post-sentencing as required by United States v. Jones, and (2) that his three predicate drug convictions were not temporally distinct to support an ACCA enhancement.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Jones claim and the ACCA temporal-distinctness claim (reviewing the latter for plain error because Smith did not clearly raise it below) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to elicit objections after sentencing as required by Jones | Smith: court did not adequately solicit fully articulated objections post-sentence | Government: court’s post-sentence questions invited objections and complied with Jones | Court: No Jones error; district court complied with Jones by inviting objections |
| Whether Smith preserved challenge to temporal distinctness of prior drug convictions for ACCA | Smith: convictions were temporally indistinguishable and thus not three predicates | Government: Smith never clearly objected below; PSR facts were uncontested | Court: Issue forfeited; reviewed for plain error and found no plain error |
| Whether district court could rely on PSR facts to apply ACCA enhancement | Smith: disputes the sufficiency/timing of prior offenses | Government: Smith admitted PSR contents by declining to dispute them at sentencing | Court: Reliance on uncontested PSR facts was proper; no plain error in enhancement |
| Whether plain-error standard is met to disturb sentence | Smith: contends plain error affected substantial rights | Government: no plain, outcome-altering error shown | Court: Smith failed to show plain error affecting substantial rights; affirmation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990) (district court must elicit fully articulated objections after sentencing)
- United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993) (overruling on other grounds)
- United States v. Neely, 979 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1992) (post‑sentence statements construed as objections)
- United States v. Ramsdale, 179 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (parties’ responses can show they understood invitation to object)
- United States v. Riggs, 967 F.2d 561 (11th Cir. 1992) (preservation requires clear, simple language)
- United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2003) (failure to preserve limits review to plain error)
- United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain‑error review and reliance on uncontested PSR facts)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain‑error remedy requires effect on fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
- United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (defendant’s failure to object to PSR constitutes admission of its facts)
- United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing ACCA predicate offense timing)