Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. v. SMITH, 370 Fed.Appx. 59 (11th Cir. 2010)
United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH,Defendant-Appellant., 370 F. App'x 59 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2010-03-22
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. SMITH, 370 Fed.Appx. 59 (11th Cir. 2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH,Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-13307 Non-Argument Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. March 22, 2010. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] George Allen Couture, Donna Lee Elm, James W.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. SMITH, 370 Fed.Appx. 59 (11th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. SMITH,370 Fed.Appx. 59(11th Cir. 2010)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-13307 Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 22, 2010.
George Allen Couture, Donna Lee Elm, James W. Smith, III, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 06-00064-CR-FTM-29-DNF.
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Luther Wayne Smith appeals his 100-month sentence, imposed after resentencing, for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Smith argues that the district court should have consideredPage 60Smith's post-sentencing rehabilitation. Basing his ruling entirely on this circuit's decision inUnited States v.Lorenzo,471 F.3d 1219(11th Cir. 2006), which precluded consideration of post-sentencing conduct, the district court declined to consider Smith's post-sentencing conduct. We agree thatLorenzocontrols this issue. Smith is nonetheless correct that there is a question as to whetherLorenzocontinues to be good law in light ofUnited States v.Booker,543 U.S. 220,125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621(2005),Rita v. United States,551 U.S. 338,127 S.Ct. 2456,168 L.Ed.2d 203(2007),Kimbrough v. UnitedStates,552 U.S. 85,128 S.Ct. 558,169 L.Ed.2d 481(2007),Gall v. United States,552 U.S. 38,128 S.Ct. 586,169 L.Ed.2d 445(2007), andSpears v. United States,___ U.S. ___,129 S.Ct. 840,172 L.Ed.2d 596(2009). Nonetheless, our circuit's prior precedent rule bars us from overrulingLorenzowithout en banc consideration.See U.S. v.Steele,147 F.3d 1316,1317-18(11th Cir. 1998) (en banc).AFFIRMED.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩