United States v. Jonathan Smith ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              REVISED July 8, 2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-11080
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 5, 2016
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JONATHAN BERNARD SMITH,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:15-CR-148-1
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Defendant-Appellant Jonathan Bernard Smith appeals his sentence for
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He
    complains that the district court erred when it increased his offense level by
    two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug-related
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 15-11080
    premises. Our review is for clear error. See United States v. Trujillo, 
    502 F.3d 353
    , 356 (5th Cir. 2007).
    Smith contends that the court erred in finding that drug distribution was
    one of his primary or principal uses of the premises because he did not have a
    possessory interest in the premises or distribute drugs from inside, or control
    access to, the home. We need not decide this question because any error was
    harmless.
    The district court stated that it would impose the same sentence
    regardless of whether it was correct regarding the premises enhancement. The
    district court explained that its sentence was based on several factors,
    including the fact that Smith intended to engage in violence by robbing an
    undercover agent during a drug transaction. The court further explained that
    the sentence was appropriate to provide just punishment, to protect the public,
    and to provide deterrence. In light of the foregoing, any error was harmless.
    See United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 
    752 F.3d 418
    , 430 (5th Cir. 2014).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-11080

Filed Date: 7/11/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021