United States v. Smith , 405 F. App'x 795 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES CHINA SMITH, JR., a/k/a JJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00870-RBH-3)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James China Smith, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or
more of cocaine base. At his sentencing hearing, Smith objected
to a government witness who testified regarding Smith’s
statements following a polygraph examination. The court
overruled the objection, noting that it was not relying on the
results from the polygraph, but was relying on statements made
by Smith himself after being informed that he had failed the
examination. Smith told the examiner that he had lied about
whether he had continued to engage in a conspiracy to distribute
cocaine while on bond. Thus, the court found that Smith was
ineligible for a safety valve reduction. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f) (2006); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 5C1.2 (2009).
We do not find that the district court abused its
discretion in relying on Smith’s statements following his
polygraph examination. United States v. Hopkins, 310 F.3d 145,
154 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing review standard). Sentencing
courts are given wider latitude on evidentiary matters because
the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing. Id.Evidence may be considered at sentencing as long as it has
sufficient indicia of reliability, see USSG § 6A1.3(a), p.s.,
including hearsay statements. See United States v. Wilkinson,
2
590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that “a sentencing
court may give weight to any relevant information before it,
including uncorroborated hearsay, provided that the information
has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy”)
(citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3