US v. Williams

Filing 920071113

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 See United States v. Williams, No. 03-4418, 2005 WL 2464343 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished) (affirming conviction but vacating and remanding sentence).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 -