US v. Williams

Filing 920061019

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID A. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00120)

Submitted: October 17, 2006

Decided: October 19, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Lloyd Snook, III, SNOOK & HAUGHEY, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: A jury convicted David A. Williams of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). sixty-three months' The district court sentenced Williams to imprisonment under the then-mandatory

sentencing guidelines. identical alternative

The sentencing court also imposed an sentence, pursuant to United States v.

Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005), on remand, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005). Williams appeals,

contending his sentence violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Sixth Amendment error in this case, if any, was harmless because the district court imposed an identical See United The district

alternative sentence in accordance with Hammoud. States v. Shatley, 448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2006).

court's alternative sentence was within the range recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and this court takes the district court at its word when it states it would impose the same sentence under the advisory guideline system. See id. at 267-68. Therefore, we

presume the district court properly considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), as required by United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-56 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.)

- 2 -

cert.

denied,

126

S.

Ct.

2309

(2006);

and

United

States

v.

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006).

Shatley, 448 F.3d at 268. We dispense

Accordingly, we affirm Williams' sentence.

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -