United States v. Timothy Williams, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Timothy Williams, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY RAMEEK WILLIAMS, a/k/a Eazy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00033-GMG-JES-1)
Submitted:
November 6, 2014
Decided:
November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas
J.
Compton,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jarod James Douglas,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Rameek Williams pleaded guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)
& 846 (2012).
He appeals his 188-month sentence.
Counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising for the courts consideration whether the district court
abused its discretion ordering a sentence to run consecutive to
any future state sentence that may be imposed, rather than any
anticipated state sentence.
(Sentencing Tr. at 20).
Williams
has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising issues challenging
the sentence.
The Government did not file a brief.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Diosado-Star, 630 F.3d
359, 363 (4th Cir. 2011).
both
the
sentence.
procedural
and
This review requires consideration of
substantive
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
reasonableness
of
the
In determining procedural
reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendants advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,
considered
presented
the
by
3553(a)
the
parties,
factors,
and
2
analyzed
sufficiently
any
arguments
explained
the
sentence.
Id.
Regardless
of
whether
the
district
court
imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular
facts
of
the
case
before
it.
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
If we find no significant procedural error,
we assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent
of
any
variance
from
the
Guidelines
range.
United
States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Because there was no objection to the district courts
direction that Williams sentence run consecutive to any state
sentence, rather than any anticipated state sentence, that may
be
imposed,
review
is
for
plain
error.
United
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
plain error, a defendant must show:
States
v.
To demonstrate
(1) there was an error; (2)
the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial
rights.
if
the
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
defendant
exercise
our
meets
discretion
his
to
burden
in
correct
this
the
regard,
error
Even
we
only
will
if
it
seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of
judicial
omitted).
proceedings.
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
In Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468
3
(2012),
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
sentencing
courts
have
discretion to order federal sentences to run consecutive to any
anticipated
state
sentence.
Here,
the
amended
judgment
demonstrates that the district court ordered Williams sentence
to run consecutively to any sentence imposed by the state court
regarding
two
specific,
related
charges.
Thus,
the
courts
imposition of sentence was in accord with Setser.
We have considered Williams arguments raised in his
pro se supplemental brief and conclude that the arguments are
without merit.
We further conclude that the within-Guidelines
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record
and
have
found
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal.
therefore affirm the district courts amended judgment.
We
This
court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Williams requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Williams.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
You might also like
- No ratings yetUnited States v. Thomas Allen Burnside, A/K/A "Blue" A/K/A "Big Boy", United States of America v. Leonard McDowell United States of America v. Bruce Perkins, United States of America v. Frank Sullivan, United States of America v. Billy Byrd, United States of America v. James Sligh, 800 F.2d 260, 4th Cir. (1986)7 pages
