United States v. Smith ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4813
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SHIRLEY E. SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
    (CR-02-313)
    Submitted:   March 11, 2005                 Decided:   March 3, 2006
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jill E. M. HaLevi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
    States Attorney, Kevin F. McDonald, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Shirley E. Smith was convicted after a jury trial of four
    counts of making false statements, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(2) (2000); one count of false declarations before a grand
    jury or court, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1623
     (2000); and two
    counts of making or presenting false claims upon the United States,
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 287
     (2000).              The district court
    sentenced Smith to twenty-seven months of imprisonment, two years
    of supervised release, and a $700 special assessment. In her first
    appeal, we affirmed Smith’s convictions, but vacated her sentence
    and   remanded   for   resentencing.      United   States   v.   Smith,   No.
    03-4467, 
    2004 WL 1729821
     (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2004) (unpublished).
    Smith now appeals the sentence imposed by the district court on
    remand.
    On remand, Smith objected to the presentencing report.
    Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington,
    
    124 S. Ct. 2531
     (2004), Smith asserted that all enhancements to her
    base offense level should be removed because the facts supporting
    those enhancements were not stipulated to or found by the jury.
    At the re-sentencing hearing the district court overruled
    Smith’s Blakely objection and applied the guidelines in accordance
    with this court’s direction in United States v. Hammoud, 
    378 F.3d 426
     (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by 
    381 F.3d 316
    , 353-54
    (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), petition for cert. granted, judgment
    - 2 -
    vacated, 
    125 S. Ct. 1051
     (2005).                 The district court imposed a
    sentence of twenty-one months of imprisonment, the minimum of the
    guideline range, two years of supervised release, and a $700
    special assessment.           The district court declined, however, to
    specify an alternative sentence as suggested in Hammoud.
    In United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005), the
    Supreme Court applied Blakely’s rationale to the federal sentencing
    guidelines. After severing two provisions of the Sentencing Reform
    Act (
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (b)(1), requiring sentencing courts to impose
    a sentence within the guideline range, and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (e),
    setting forth standards of review on appeal), the Court held that
    the guidelines remain as advisory only.              Sentencing courts are now
    required to consider the applicable guideline range, but may
    “tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns . . . .”
    Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757.
    In   this    case,   as    in   Booker,    Smith’s     sentence   was
    determined     by   application      of    the    Guidelines    as   a    mandatory
    determinant in sentencing. Although the district court stated that
    it believed a twenty-one month sentence was appropriate in this
    case,   the    court      specifically    declined      to   state   an   alternate
    sentence if the Guidelines were merely advisory.                It is impossible
    to determine on the present record whether the district court would
    have chosen to sentence Smith to twenty-one months in the exercise
    of its discretion.
    - 3 -
    We therefore again vacate the sentence imposed by the
    district court and remand for reconsideration of the sentence in
    accordance with Booker.   We deny the Government’s motion to remand
    as moot.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4813

Judges: Luttig, Williams, King

Filed Date: 3/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024