United States v. Robert Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2023
• Docket: 23-1409
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-1409 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Robert Clay Smith

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: October 18, 2023 Filed: October 30, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Smith appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising challenges to the district court’s1 denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Watson, 883 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2018). While Smith argued that he would not have pleaded guilty but for his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance, he testified that he was satisfied with his counsel’s performance during the plea hearing. See United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016). Further, his statements during the plea hearing demonstrate that his guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2005); Voytik v. United States, 778 F.2d 1306, 1308 (8th Cir. 1985). We also agree with the district court that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See United States v. Cheney, 571 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2009). As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the within-Guidelines sentence that Smith received. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-