US v. Williams

Filing 920071113


Download PDF
Vacated by Supreme Court, March 24, 2008 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:99-cr-00346-PJM) Submitted: October 22, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Carnell Williams appeals the district court's sentence imposed after we remanded for resentencing consistent with the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Williams, No. 03-4418, 2005 WL 2464343 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished) (affirming conviction but vacating and remanding sentence). At resentencing, the court imposed the same sentence, 262 months' imprisonment, or the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment. court erred by of giving a sentence and within Williams claims the the to guidelines a a presumption reasonableness defaulting guidelines sentence without giving full consideration to the 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) sentencing factors. claims the court gave undue weight to acquitted He also in conduct determining his guidelines sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. After Booker, a sentencing court must calculate the appropriate guideline range, consider that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 3553(a), and impose sentence. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47. sentence to determine whether This court reviews a post-Booker it is "within the statutorily prescribed range" and reasonable. within the proper advisory Id. at 547. range is "[A] sentence presumptively Guidelines reasonable." United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. - 2 - 2006). "[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 3553(a) factors." 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). reasonableness review, this court reviews When conducting a "legal questions, including the interpretation of the guidelines, de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error." United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). unreasonable. A factual or legal error can render a sentence Id. We find the district court appropriately followed the post-Booker sentencing procedure. It determined the guidelines range of imprisonment and then considered the 3553(a) factors. We find Williams' sentence reasonable. We further find the court did not give undue weight to Williams' acquitted conduct. Accordingly, we affirm Williams' sentence. We dispense 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 -

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?