US v. Williams
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QUENTIN VIRGIL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00024-WLO)
November 17, 2006
December 13, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Following a hearing at which Quentin Virgil Williams admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Williams appealed. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 366 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting his opinion that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing a twenty-four month sentence. The Government did not file a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Williams did not file a pro se supplemental brief. reversible error, we affirm. We recently held in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the Finding no
revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence is "plainly unreasonable." In this case, Williams's sentence was
not above the statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment, the court considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement range, and the court stated a proper basis for sentencing Williams to twentyfour months of the imprisonment. court noted See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437. to
supervised release and his repeated violations. Because Williams's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel We
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. Counsel's motion must state that a We dispense with oral
copy thereof was served on Williams.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?