United States v. Smith
677 F. App'x 7
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Rashad Smith, serving a federal sentence, pled guilty to possession of contraband (marijuana) in federal prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 and was sentenced to 8 months, to run consecutively to his existing term.
- The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence; Smith appealed claiming the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- Procedural challenges: Smith argued the court erred by (1) characterizing his conduct as a breach of trust related to his job as a prison photographer and (2) treating the quantity of marijuana as indicative of distribution.
- Substantive challenge: Smith argued the court failed adequately to account for collateral consequences imposed or potentially imposed by the Bureau of Prisons and thus the sentence was excessive.
- The district court did not apply a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement and stated it had considered but declined to downwardly depart based on collateral consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural: breach of trust | N/A (government supported sentence) | Smith argued court improperly concluded he breached prison trust tied to his job | Court found no error — Smith admitted he "violated the trust" and no § 3B1.3 enhancement was applied |
| Procedural: drug-quantity characterization | N/A | Smith argued court wrongly treated his possession (26 packets) as distribution-quantity | Court held transcript shows government argued indicative of distribution but court recognized aggregate weight was small; no procedural error |
| Substantive: collateral consequences | N/A | Smith argued court failed to give sufficient weight to collateral BOP punishments, making the sentence substantively unreasonable | Court held within-Guidelines sentence was within permissible range; court considered authority to depart and reasonably declined to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (establishes deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses standards for reasonableness review)
- United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (within-Guidelines sentences are rarely substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (addressing court authority to depart for collateral consequences)
- United States v. Robinson, 799 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2015) (district court not required to depart for collateral consequences absent misunderstanding of authority)