United States v. Carlos Smith, Jr. ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4505
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS EDWIN SMITH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00195-WO-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John D. Bryson, WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Angela H.
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Edwin Smith, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district
court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 105 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Smith argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because
the court failed to properly consider Smith’s adverse childhood experiences in fashioning
his sentence. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877
F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). “If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th. Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
To assess procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, adequately considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained the selected sentence, and addressed
any nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence. United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d
213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). A “district court[ ] need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The sentencing explanation need not be extensive, but it must
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4505 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
demonstrate that the district court had “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal
decision-making authority.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 218 (internal quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Smith argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to consider Smith’s adverse childhood experiences as an independent
mitigating sentencing factor under § 3553(a). ∗ However, the district court considered
Smith’s adverse childhood experiences under § 3553(a)(1) as part of the “history and
characteristics of the defendant.” The district court ultimately concluded that while
Smith’s attorney had articulated good points concerning Smith’s adverse childhood
experiences, other aspects of Smith’s background and the underlying offense were more
persuasive in informing Smith’s sentence. We conclude that Smith’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
∗
Smith does not lodge a separate substantive reasonableness challenge on appeal.
3