United States of America v. Christopher Todd Smith

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TODD SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30374
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-06004-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Todd Smith appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30374 2
Smith first contends that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence. In light of the fact that this was Smith’s fifth revocation
offense, the 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a
revocation sentencing, the district court may sanction the defendant for his breach
of trust).
Smith next contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by
failing to provide proof of his enrollment in school and by failing to interview a
witness before the witness testified. Although ineffective assistance of counsel
claims are generally not considered on direct appeal, the record here is sufficiently
developed to permit consideration of this claim. See United States v. Alferahin,
433 F.3d 1148, 1160 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Smith’s claim fails because even if his
counsel’s performance were deficient, it did not prejudice him. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94 (1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --