UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Alexander SMALLWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-4600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 15, 2013. Decided: May 24, 2013.
239
Under either ground for relief, the issue in this case is whether the new evidence, which tends to impeach a Government witness, is material. Undisclosed evidence is material when its cumulative effect is such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A reasonable probability is one sufficient to “undermine confidence” in the outcome. Id. at 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (“The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.“). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Pierre‘s motion for a new trial because, considering the wealth of evidence pointing to Pierre‘s guilt, the newly discovered evidence does not undermine confidence in the verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s judgment and order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott Alexander Smallwood pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography, in violation of
We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. We must assess, among other things, whether the district court considered the
Smallwood first argues that the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a within-Guidelines sentence. However, our review of the joint appendix filed by the parties leads us to conclude that the district court considered and rejected Smallwood‘s arguments. Thus, the district court committed no procedural error.
Having concluded there is no procedural error, we next review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
Smallwood asserts that the district court failed to explain sufficiently why a sentence 333 months above the top of the Guidelines range—and 398 months longer than the 262-month sentence he requested—was appropriate, but the record belies his claim. The court discussed the
Accordingly, taking into account “the totality of the circumstances,” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance near the statutory maximum possible sentence and therefore affirm the district court‘s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.