977 F.3d 431
5th Cir.2020Background
- Smith trafficked a 14-year-old (B.R.), forced her to take sexual photos posted on Backpage, and coerced her to have sex with men; police recovered Backpage ads and seized a cell phone at a hotel sting.
- At first trial Smith proceeded pro se, was convicted after a bench trial, and was sentenced; this Court (Smith I) vacated the conviction for denial of the right to counsel and remanded.
- On remand Smith was appointed counsel, re-indicted, moved to suppress phone evidence (alleging warrantless access shown by a forensic report), and the district court denied a suppression hearing and the suppression motion as speculative.
- Smith pleaded guilty to sex trafficking while reserving the suppression issue, later filed a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, and was denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- At re-sentencing, after victim-impact testimony, the court imposed a 600-month prison term (within the calculated Guidelines range of 360 months to life) and $50,000 restitution.
- Fifth Circuit affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying a suppression hearing or suppression, acceptance-of-responsibility denial was proper, and the 600-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion | Motion lacked specific, nonconjectural facts to warrant a hearing | Forensic report showed post-seizure activity on phone, justifying a hearing; right to counsel entitles hearing | No abuse; motion was speculative and merely repeated prior arguments; appointment of counsel does not mandate a hearing |
| Whether phone evidence should be suppressed for a pre-warrant search | Warrant was obtained later; no evidence officers accessed phone pre-warrant | Expert testified phone showed activity after seizure indicating warrantless access | Affirmed; Smith failed to prove officers searched the phone or linked the forensic entries to introduced evidence |
| Whether Smith merited a Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility | PSR and prosecution viewed Smith's pro se motion to withdraw plea as inconsistent with acceptance | Smith asserted he accepted responsibility | Denial upheld under deferential review given the inconsistent conduct (motion to withdraw) |
| Whether the 600-month sentence was unreasonable, rule of lenity, and disparity with co-defendant | Sentence within Guidelines and adequately explained; lenity inapplicable to advisory Guidelines; disparity justified by different criminal history and victim impact | Claimed lenity should reduce offense level; argued sentence vindictive or disparate vs. co-defendant | Affirmed: Guidelines unambiguous so lenity inapplicable; court provided sufficient reasons; disparities justified by differing Guidelines ranges and facts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 895 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2018) (vacated prior conviction for denial of counsel and remanded)
- United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1983) (hearing on suppression required only when movant alleges sufficient nonconjectural facts)
- United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 1994) (appellate standard: uphold district court if any reasonable view of the evidence supports it)
- United States v. Silva, 865 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2017) (deferential review of acceptance-of-responsibility decisions)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (Guidelines are advisory post-Booker)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges like statutes)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (less explanation required for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2015) (within-Guidelines sentence requires limited explanation)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (presumption of vindictiveness can be rebutted by objective information justifying increased sentence)