USA v. Guy Ennis Smith

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12276
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:70-cr-00176-HLA-JBT-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUY ENNIS SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 29, 2016)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and REEVES,*
District Judge.
* Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Case: 14-12276 Date Filed: 02/29/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
This is Guy Smith’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition for
error coram nobis relief from his 1971 conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 704.
One of the requirements for coram nobis relief is that the petitioner show that the
challenged conviction is “causing a present harm” that is “more than incidental.”
United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2007). Smith long ago finished
serving the sentence imposed as a result of the § 704 conviction. He contends,
however, that the existence of that conviction is causing him present harm because
it is detrimentally affecting his salient factor score for purposes of parole from the
life sentence he is currently serving in Florida as a result of an unrelated murder
conviction.
In the district court, Smith pleaded and argued the presence of that
detrimental effect and current harm, and he proffered some documents relating to
the issue, but the government disputed the matter. No evidentiary hearing was held
and the district court did not enter any findings about the issue. For those reasons,
we will vacate the district court’s order denying the petition and remand the case
for the court to determine whether Smith’s 1971 conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 704 is detrimentally affecting his chances of parole or otherwise causing him any
Case: 14-12276 Date Filed: 02/29/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
present harm. If the parties cannot agree on the facts, the district court should hold
an evidentiary hearing and enter findings.
This is a full remand and if the district court finds that Smith has shown he is
suffering current harm because of the challenged conviction, it should proceed to
determine whether he meets the other requirements for coram nobis relief. The
government is free to assert any defenses it has to the petition. We neither state
nor imply any view on whether coram nobis relief should be granted in this case.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Case: 14-12276 Date Filed: 02/29/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --