United States of America v. Cameron Shawayne Smith

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Susan H. Black, United States Senior Circuit Judge for**
the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAMERON SHAWAYNE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30219
D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00062-JDS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and BLACK**, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Cameron Shawayne Smith challenges his sentence. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the district court.
FILED
AUG 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The district court did not commit clear error in concluding that Smith
possessed a firearm during the commission of his drug trafficking offense and
applying an enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines §
2D1.1(b)(1), where the firearm was in his apartment where drugs were found. See
United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1989); see also United
States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 716 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that unloaded
firearms qualify for this enhancement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Smith was
ineligible for safety valve relief where the district court found that Smith failed to
disclose buyers, suppliers, and general facts about the chain of distribution. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); see also United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100,
1105 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] defendant satisfies his ‘good faith’ obligation by
providing the Government with truthful, complete information . . .”); United States
v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that the good faith
requirement includes “provid[ing] information concerning co-conspirators”)
(citation omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Smith was
ineligible for the two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility where the
district court found that Smith did not admit to all conduct comprising the offense,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
including the drug amount, his role, and his possession of the firearm. See
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.1.
Smith’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district
court considered arguments of counsel and the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced
Smith at the low end of the guideline range. See United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d
1069, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012), as amended (en banc) (“In determining substantive
reasonableness, we are to consider the totality of the circumstances . . .”) (citation
omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --