United States v. Ronald Smith

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 3, 2018
Docket18-30060
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ronald Smith (United States v. Ronald Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ronald Smith, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-30060

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00055-SPW

v. MEMORANDUM* RONALD ANDREW SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018*

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Andrew Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm.

Smith contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district

court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including the danger to the public posed by Smith’s flight from law enforcement in

connection with the offense and on prior occasions, and his extensive criminal

history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Contrary to Smith’s argument, the sentence

received by a defendant in another case does not show that Smith’s sentence is

unreasonable. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th Cir.

2010). Moreover, the court properly considered several aggravating and mitigating

factors, not just sentencing disparities, in fashioning the sentence. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-30060

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Treadwell
593 F.3d 990 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Ronald Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-smith-ca9-2018.