United States v. Thomas Smith

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4106 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS ERIK SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00219-LMB-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cadence A. Mertz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, Tony Ray Roberts, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4106 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Erik Smith appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Smith’s

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the procedural reasonableness

of Smith’s sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Smith has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

“A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation

of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206

(4th Cir. 2017). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum

and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 207 (internal quotation marks omitted). A district

court imposes a procedurally reasonable revocation sentence by “considering the

Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,” “adequately explain[ing] the chosen sentence,” and

“meaningfully respond[ing] to the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments” for a different

sentence. Id. (footnotes omitted).

Anders counsel notes that the district court neither mentioned the applicable

statutory maximum sentence nor expressly calculated Smith’s policy statement range. We

discern no reversible error, however, as the court sentenced Smith below the statutory

maximum and implicitly adopted the correctly calculated range proffered by defense

counsel.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4106 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

Next, Anders counsel questions whether the district court’s sentencing explanation

sufficiently relied on the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. On this point, we conclude

that the court properly predicated its revocation sentence on, among other things, Smith’s

extremely poor record on supervision, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (providing sentence

should account for defendant’s history and characteristics), and his association with people

engaged in criminal conduct, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (providing sentence should

account for need to protect public from defendant’s further crimes).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Smith’s revocation judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Smith.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED