Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Samuel Earl Smith, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court briefMay 25, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. _______________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 2020
SAMUEL EARL SMITH
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
LAW OFFICE OF STAN SCHWIEGER
600 Austin Avenue, Suite 12
Waco, Texas 76701
(254) 752-5678
(254) 752-7792 — Facsimile
State Bar No. 17880500
E-mail: wacocrimatty@yahoo.com
ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
May 25, 2021
QUESTION PRESENTED
The Fifth Circuit’s holding in finding that Mr. Smith was a leader or
organizer under the United States Sentencing Guidelines evidences a
circuit split.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page i
LIST OF PARTIES
Pursuant to Rule 14.1(b) of the Rules of this Court, Petitioner would show that
all parties to the proceeding of which the judgment is sought to be revised appear in
the caption of this case.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
List of Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Basis of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Statutes Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Argument for Granting the Writ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.
Grounds for Granting the Writ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B.
Reasons for Granting the Writ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion and Judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Judgment of the United States-District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division . . . . . . . . A-4
Statutes Involved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Kaley v. United States,
517 U.S. 320 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
United States v. Bass,
54 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
United States v. Billingsley,
115 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
United States v. Bjorkman,
270 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States v. Collins,
877 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
United States v. Mankiewicz,
122 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6
United States v. Mays,
902 F.2d 1501 (10th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
United States v. McGregor,
11 F.3d 1133 (2d Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
United States v. Mir,
919 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States v. Mitchell,
85 F.3d 800 (1st Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
United States v. Ornelas-Yanez,
77 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (D.N.M. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States v. Schultz,
14 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page iv
United States v. Smith,
840 F. App’x 782, 784 (5th Cir. 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x,1, 6, 8
United States v. Tagore,
158 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
United States v. Talladino,
38 F.3d 1255 (1st Cir.1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States v. Weidner,
703 F. Supp. 1350 (N.D. Ind. 1988), aff’d, 885 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1989) . . . . 7
FEDERAL RULES
Sup. Ct. R. 10(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES
USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. (n.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5
MISCELLANEOUS
Joseph L. Barloon,
An Economic Analysis of Group Crime and the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, 84 Geo. L.J. 2261, 2276 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page v
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 2021
SAMUEL EARL SMITH
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner, Samuel Earl Smith, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari
issue to review the judgment and opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, entered in the above-entitled proceeding on February 26, 2021.
BASIS OF JURISDICTION
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals entered their judgment on February 26,
2021.1 The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the United States Code.2
1
(App., p. A-1).
2
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (2020) (“Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by the following methods . . . [b]y writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party
to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree.”).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page vi
STATUTES INVOLVED
This material has been included in the Appendix.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A federal grand jury named Appellant Samuel Earl Smith in a three-count
indictment alleging:
Count
Offense
Statute
1
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Methamphetamine, a
Schedule Two Controlled Substance.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C.
§841(a)(1)(b)(1)(A)(viii)].3
2
Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Cocaine, a Schedule II
Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
(21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii) (II)].4
3
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute “Crack” Cocaine, a Schedule
II Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(iii); 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(iii)].5
On November 20, 2018, the Government filed a superseding information
alleging and requesting:
3
ROA.20-50187.18–19.
4
ROA.20-50187.19–20.
5
ROA.20-50187.20–21.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page vii
Count
Offense
Statute
1
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Methamphetamine, a
Schedule Two Controlled Substance.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1)(b)
(1)(A)(viii)].6
2
Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Cocaine, a Schedule II
Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)].7
3
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute “Crack” Cocaine, a Schedule
II Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(iii); 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(iii)].8
Notice of Governments Demand for Forfeiture
21 U.S.C. § 853(a).9
The Government then filed a Sentencing Enhancement Information on May
13, 2019. 10 Within the document, the Government alleged that Appellant had been
convicted of a “serious violent felony.”11 Further, Appellant had served a term of
imprisonment more than 12 months for the alleged felony, and his release was
within 15 years of commencement of the instant offense.12 As a result of a
conviction, the Government averred that Appellant was subject to an increase
6
ROA.20-50187.59–60.
7
ROA.20-50187.60–61.
8
ROA.20-50187.61–62.
9
ROA.20-50187.61–62.
10
ROA.20-50187.95.
11
ROA.20-50187.95. The Government alleged that Appellant had been convicted of
Aggravated Robbery in cause number 9409841, in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.
12
ROA.20-50187.95.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page viii
punishment to a mandatory term of at least 15 years of imprisonment, maximum
life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed $20 million and at least 10 years of
supervised release.13
On November 20, 2018, the Government filed its second superseding
information in this cause, alleging and requesting:
Count
Offense
Statute
1
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Methamphetamine, a
Schedule Two Controlled Substance.
Sentence Enhancement.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(b)
(1)(A)(viii)].14
21 U.S.C. § 851.15
2
Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute Cocaine, a Schedule II
Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance and to
Distribute at Least 500 Grams of Cocaine, a
Schedule II Narcotic Drug Controlled
Substance.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)].16
3
Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute
and to Distribute at Least 280 Grams of
“Crack” Cocaine, a Schedule II Narcotic Drug
Controlled Substance.
Sentence Enhancement.
21 U.S.C. § 846.
[21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(iii)].17
Notice of Governments Demand for Forfeiture
21 U.S.C. § 853(a).19
13
ROA.20-50187.95.
14
ROA.20-50187.97–98.
15
ROA.20-50187.98.
16
ROA.20-50187.97–98.
17
ROA.20-50187.98–99.
18
ROA.20-50187.99.
19
ROA.20-50187.99–100.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
21 U.S.C. § 851.18
Page ix
On July 1, 2019, the Government moved to dismiss “the Sentencing
Enhancement Information, and Superseding Information in this cause,” without
prejudice.20 Then, on May 2, 2020, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the three
counts in the second superceding information.21
The District Court held Appellant’s sentencing hearing on March 4, 2020.
Punishment was assessed at 300 months as to each of the three counts to be served
concurrently.22 Upon release from imprisonment, Mr. Smith must serve five years
supervised release, which again is to be served concurrently.23 A fine of $750.00
($250.00 for each count) and special assessments totaling of $300.00 were also
assessed.24 Judgment was entered on March 5, 2020.25 Petitioner’s issues were
overruled in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.26
20
ROA.20-50187.99–100.
21
ROA.20-50187.223–24. Mr. Smith also waived indictment in this matter. ROA.20-
50187.127–28.
22
ROA.20-50187.155.
23
ROA.20-50187.155.
24
ROA.20-50187.159.
25
ROA.20-50187.154.
26
United States v. Smith, 840 Fed. Appx. 782 (5th Cir. 2021).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page x
ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that the concept of corpus delicti should not
apply in the punishment phase?
A.
Ground for Granting the Writ.
Problems concerning section “3B1.1 arise with seemingly infinite
shadings. The text of the guideline and its application notes provide
limited guidance . . .”27
This Court is called upon to more clearly define the parameters of being an
“organizer or leader” or “manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader).” In
the instant case, the Fifth Circuit cited three factors, two of which conflict with
applicable decision of other Circuits.28 As such, Petitioner argues that the Fifth
Circuit’s has entered a decision requires review.29
B.
Reasons for Granting the Writ.
Below, the Fifth Circuit upheld a four-point level increase for an “aggravating
role” in a criminal offense.30 The panel found three factors in support of Mr. Smith’s
“leadership role”: (1) the evidence of Mr. Smith’s role in receiving complaints or
soliciting feedback about the quality of the cocaine provided; (2) his direction of at
least one co-defendant during a part of the conspiracy; and (3) the “suggestion” of
the PSR that Mr. Smith was the sole source of supply for his co-defendants.31
27
Cf. United States v. Collins, 877 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 2017).
28
United States v. Smith, 840 F. App’x 782, 784 (5th Cir. 2021).
29
Sup. Ct. R. 10(a).
30
Alexander, 840 Fed. Appx. at 784.
31
Id.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 1
Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a level increase for an
“aggravating role” in a criminal offense:
Based on the defendant’s role in the offense, increase the offense level
as follows:
(a)
If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity
that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive,
increase by 4 levels.
(b)
If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an
organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more
participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels.
(c)
If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b),
increase by 2 levels.
However, the Guidelines do not clearly define the term “leader” and the
courts must make this determination. To assist, the Guidelines provides that a
sentencing court should consider several factors when determining whether a
defendant was a leader: “the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of
participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the
claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation
in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity,
and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.” The Guidelines
further provide that “[t]o qualify for an adjustment under this section, the
defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or
more other participants.”
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 2
In general, the circuits agree that the cited commentary to the Guidelines
purports only to suggest various factors the court should consider. Evidence of every
factor is not a prerequisite to a finding that the defendant is a leader or organizer
under section 3B1.1, nor is evidence that the defendant is the sole or predominate
leader required.32 Further, the circuits are in agreement that where a defendant is
leader or organizer of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or
was otherwise extensive, and the record establishes that the putative leader gave
directions to at least one of the participants, the enhancement is proper.33
The opposite conclusion demonstrates another area of agreement: a single
factor does not automatically justify the imposition of this enhancement.34 Rather,
the factors must be weighed by the district court in light of the intent of the
Guidelines section to differentiate among relative degrees of responsibility.35
32
United States v. Bass, 54 F.3d 125, 128 (3d Cir. 1995).
33
USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. (n.2).
34
See United States v. Billingsley, 115 F.3d 458, 465 (7th Cir. 1997).
35
United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399, 406 (7th Cir. 1997).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 3
1.
Supervisory role.
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither
more, nor less.”36
The failure of the Sentencing Commission to fully define the factors under section
3B1.1 created a circuit split. In ths case, the Fifth Circuit found that even a one
time exercise of supervision supports an aggravating role Guideline level increase.
This is contrary to several Seventh Circuit holdings.
As cited above, the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Smith directed “at least one
co-defendant during a part of the conspiracy.” However, the record demonstrates
only one instance of “control,” where Appellant brokered a drug swap using a
codefendant as an intermediary in a one-off deal.37 Mr. Smith believes that this
broad construction of the supervision aspect requires review, as this holding fails to
account for reading the Guideline as a whole.
The gravamen of this enhancement is either the exercise of control over other
participants or the organization of others to carry out the crime.38 The Sentencing
Commission included this adjustment primarily because of concerns about relative
36
LEWIS CARROLL, THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS, AND WHAT ALICE FOUND THERE 52 (1871).
37
ROA.20-50187.275.
38
United States v. Tagore, 158 F.3d 1124, 1131 (10th Cir. 1998).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 4
responsibility.39 As such, this adjustment increases with both the size of the
organization and the degree of the defendant’s responsibility.40
The aggravating role adjustment is properly viewed as having a temporal, as
well as scope test, when the allegations are an ongoing conspiracy.41 Both the Fifth
and Seventh Circuits have spoken to the temporal requirement, and have
authorized the adjustment only in cases where it is “anchored to the transaction . . .
It is not the contours of the offense charged that defines the outer limit of the
transaction; rather it is the contours of the underlying scheme itself. All
participation firmly based in that underlying transaction is ripe for consideration in
adjudging leadership role.”42
The narrow focus in the instant case – granting an adjustment based a single
transaction – hardly seems to comprise a broad view of the entire “underlying
scheme.” To be a “manager” or “supervisor” is to occupy a role – to have a status. A
defendant who “makes the critical strategic and operational decisions” in a group
39
USSG § 3B1.1(a) (comment.) (backg’d) (emphasis added).
40
Id.
41
See United States v. Ornelas-Yanez, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1113 (D.N.M. 2014). There , the
district court found that section 3B1.1 enhancement is proper within one time crimes “because [section]
3B1.1 contains no requirement that the underlying offense occur over an extended period of time.”
However, that case merely reinterates the 3B1.1 factors must be weighed in light of the intent of the
Guidelines section to differentiate among relative degrees of responsibility. Obviously, the degrees of
responsibility shift when a crime is committed over a longer time.
42
United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 944 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); accord United
States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482, 497 (7th Cir. 2001).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 5
enterprise can be deemed an organizer or leader.43 Essentially, leaders must be able
to exercise some element of control or organization over other people.44 Viewed in
this manner, a leader is a personnel specialist.45 The correct focus in this sentencing
enhancement should distinguish between ongoing supervision and merely asking a
coconspirator, on one occasion, to do something.46 The former provides grounds for
the enhancement; the latter does not. The Fifth Circuit’s holding concerning this
factor stands in stark contrast to the finding by the Seventh Circuit, and requires
review.
2.
Smith was the sole source of supply for his co-defendants.
In the opinion, the Smith panel found that the evidence “suggested Smith
was the sole source of supply for his co-defendants”47 supported the supervisory
enhancement. This stands in contrast to several other circuits that have held a
43
United States v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255, 1261 (1st Cir.1994).
44
Joseph L. Barloon, An Economic Analysis of Group Crime and the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, 84 GEO. L.J. 2261, 2276 (1996).
45
Id.
46
United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399, 405–06 and n. 4 (7th Cir. 1997); United States
v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 813–14 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. McGregor, 11 F.3d 1133, 1138–39 (2d
Cir. 1993) (“One isolated instance of a drug dealer husband asking his wife to assist him in a drug
transaction is not the type of situation that section 3B1.1 was designed to reach.”).
47
Smith, 840 F. App’x at 784.
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 6
mere buy/sell relationship does not qualify for an aggravating role in the offense
enhancement.48 This demonstrates a further circuit split and requires review.49
48
United States v. Schultz, 14 F.3d 1093, 1099 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Mays, 902
F.2d 1501, 1503 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Weidner, 703 F. Supp. 1350, 1354 (N.D. Ind. 1988),
aff’d, 885 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1989).
49
Kaley v. United States, 517 U.S. 320, 326 (2014).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 7
3.
Quality control.
The Fifth Circuit, noted without passing on whether the “quality control” of
the product contributed to Mr. Smith’s leadership role.50 The presentence
investigation report (PSR) detailed intercepted telephone calls in which Smith
either received complaints or solicited feedback about the quality of the cocaine he
provided.51 In summary, the discussions can be summarized Mr. Smith’s
codefendant’s stated that: (1) cocaine of sufficient quality to “cook” was needed; (2)
the yield from powder to crack cocaine was of concern, and finally, that Mr. Smith
received either statements or complaints about the quality of the contraband. Since
the Fifth Circuit did not pass on this issue, and because the Guidelines are now
advisory, this appears to be a question that must be remanded to the Fifth Circuit.52
C.
Conclusion
Because the failure of the Fifth Circuit failed to grant Petitioner a sentence
free of error, this Honorable Court should grant Petitioner’s Writ.
50
Smith, 840 Fed. Appx. at 784 (stating that neither party supplied “controlling authority”
from the Fifth Circuit “ addressing whether the receipt of complaints about the quality of drugs provided
support for an ‘organizer or leader enhancement.”’
51
Id.
52
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007) (holding the Guidelines are now
advisory, and appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are
“reasonable.”).
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 8
PRAYER
Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court grant his Writ of Certiorari,
and reverse the holdings of the District Court and the Fifth Circuit, and for any
other relief that he may be so entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF STAN SCHWIEGER
/s/ Stan Schwieger
Stan Schwi eger
600 Austin Avenue, Suite 12
Waco, Texas 76701
(254) 752-5678
(254) 752-7792—Facsimile
State Bar No. 17880500
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
Samuel Earl Smith v. United States—Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Page 9
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.