United States of America v. Robert Clay Smith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1409
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Robert Clay Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 18, 2023
Filed: October 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Smith appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the
United States. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders

-- 1 of 2 --

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising challenges to the district court’s1 denial
of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States
v. Watson, 883 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2018). While Smith argued that he would
not have pleaded guilty but for his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance, he testified
that he was satisfied with his counsel’s performance during the plea hearing. See
United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016). Further, his statements
during the plea hearing demonstrate that his guilty plea was made knowingly and
voluntarily. See United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017);
United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2005); Voytik v. United States,
778 F.2d 1306, 1308 (8th Cir. 1985). We also agree with the district court that there
was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See United States v. Cheney, 571 F.3d
764, 769 (8th Cir. 2009). As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that
the district court did not err in imposing the within-Guidelines sentence that Smith
received. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014); United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --