United States v. Antonio Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 24-4196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO LAMONT SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-4196

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23−cr−00158−WO−1)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 6

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall S. Galyon, Acting United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Lamont Smith (“Appellant”) was indicted on April 23, 2023, for a single

count of knowingly possessing ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

The indictment also charged an enhancement pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act

(the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which states, “a person who violates section 922(g)

of this title and has three previous convictions by any court . . . for a violent

felony . . . committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined

under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

Appellant pled not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

The district court did not instruct the jury to make a finding as to whether Appellant

had three qualifying ACCA convictions. Instead, in accord with then controlling

precedent, the court instructed the jury to find only whether Appellant (1) knowingly

possessed ammunition and (2) did so with knowledge that he was a convicted felon. The

jury answered in he affirmative on both issues.

At sentencing, the district court made findings of fact with regard to Appellant’s

prior convictions. In particular, the court considered Appellant’s pre-sentence

investigation report, which indicated that Appellant had been convicted in North Carolina

state court for armed robberies occurring on January 3, 2000; January 11, 2000; April 24,

2003; and April 30, 2003, respectively. Each of those robberies involved different victims

and the use of different weapons by Appellant. The district court thus determined that

Appellant had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies committed on occasions

different from one another. Thus, pursuant to the ACCA, the district court determined that

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 4 of 6

Appellant was subject to a mandatory minimum of 15 years’ incarceration. The court

sentenced Appellant to 300 months’ incarceration. Appellant timely appealed his sentence

and conviction.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Erlinger v. United States, 144

S. C.T. 821 (2024). There, the Court abrogated our prior precedent and established that a

criminal defendant is “entitled to have a jury resolve ACCA’s occasions inquiry

unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt” by virtue of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Erlinger, 144 S. Ct. at 1852.

Appellant now argues that pursuant to Erlinger, the district court committed

prejudicial error by failing to submit to the jury the question of whether Appellant has been

convicted of three or more qualifying ACCA offenses, and thus that he is now entitled to a

new trial. We disagree and hold that although the district court committed a constitutional

error, that error was harmless.

“[H]armless-error review applies to . . . Erlinger error[s].” U.S. v. Brown, 136 F.4th

87, 94 (4th Cir. 2025) (PVN, TJH, HFF). That standard places on the Government the

burden to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute

to the [result] obtained.” Id. at 93 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

North Carolina common law robbery is a violent felony for the purpose of ACCA.

See United States v. Dinkins, 928 F.3d 349, 355 (4th Cir. 2019). Thus, the only question

in this appeal is whether there is any reasonable doubt that the jury would have found

unanimously that at least three of Appellant’s four prior robbery offenses constitute

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 5 of 6

“occasions different from one another,” if instructed by the court to make such a finding.

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); Brown, 136 F.4th at 93.

An “occasion” for the purposes of ACCA is “essentially an episode or event” that

may encompass multiple crimes even when they are separated by some temporal distance.

Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063, 1069 (2022). Whether two separate crimes

occurred on the same “occasion” is thus a “multi-factored” question that requires us to

consider, among other factors: (1) the timing of the offenses; (2) whether the offenses were

part of an “uninterrupted course of conduct;” (3) the “[p]roximity of locations” of the

offenses; and (4) “the character and relationship of the offenses,” including whether they

share “a common scheme or purpose.” Id. at 1070–71.

Appellant does not contest the manner in which his prior convictions were

characterized in the PSR. Rather, he concedes that he has prior convictions for four

instances of armed robbery involving four different weapons and four different victims on

four different dates each separated by not less than six days. Nor does he argue that the

crimes took place in the same or similar locations. Instead, Appellant’s only argument is

as follows: “[A] jury could find that the similarity of conduct, i.e., robbery, warrants a

finding that robberies separated by 6 days constitutes [sic] only one occasion.” Opening

Br. at 13.

We hold that there is no reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Appellant

to have been convicted of at least three qualifying ACCA offenses. First, each robbery was

separated by at least six days. Second, each involved different weapons, victims, and

circumstances, suggesting that no two were part of a single, uninterrupted course of

5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4196 Doc: 51 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 6 of 6

conduct. Third, there is no evidence in the record that the offenses took place in the same

or related locations. And finally, the evidence suggests that rather than sharing a common

scheme or purpose, the robberies were connected only by the same general means and

motivation.

Consequently, the district court is

AFFIRMED.