US v. Tuwana Williams

Filing 920100216

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TUWANA WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-7)

Submitted:

January 8, 2010

Decided:

February 16, 2010

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Salvini, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tuwana Williams pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to utter counterfeit securities, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment. Williams appeals.

Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district court erred in holding Williams responsible for the total loss and number of victims attributable to the entire conspiracy and whether the court erred in refusing to impose a below-Guidelines sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The Guidelines provide that a defendant is responsible for "all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance U.S. of . . . jointly undertaken § criminal activity." (2007).

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

1B1.3(a)(1)(B)

Williams admitted that she introduced other individuals to the counterfeit check-cashing scheme and that she was aware of the other participants. Accordingly, the district court did not

clearly err in attributing to her the total loss and number of victims associated with the underlying conspiracy. See United

States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing standard). Next, counsel questions whether the court erred in We

denying Williams' request for a below-Guidelines sentence. 2

review

a

sentence

for

reasonableness,

applying

an

abuse

of

discretion standard. (2007). the Id.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46

This review requires appellate consideration of both and substantive whether reasonableness the district of a sentence. properly

procedural After

determining

court

calculated the defendant's advisory Guidelines range, this court must then consider whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by the (2006) parties, Gall, factors, and 552 analyzed any arguments the

presented selected

sufficiently U.S. at

explained see

sentence.

49-50;

United

States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). the substantive reasonableness of the Finally, we review "taking into

sentence,

account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range." United States v.

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). of correctness to a sentence This court applies a presumption within the properly-calculated

Guidelines range. Here,

Rita, 551 U.S. at 346-47. the district court correctly calculated

Williams' Guidelines range and, after hearing her arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines

sentence of fifteen months.

We find that the district court's

explanation was sufficient to show that the court conducted the 3

sort of individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall and Carter. of Moreover, Williams has failed her to rebut the

presumption sentence. reasonable.

reasonableness we find

accorded that

within-Guidelines sentence is

Therefore,

Williams'

Williams has also filed a supplemental pro se brief in which she asks this court to grant a sentence reduction and allow her to complete the remainder of her sentence on house arrest. filing However, Williams may only seek this relief by first in the district court a motion for modification of

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(3) (2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be 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 We dispense with oral

a copy thereof was served on the client.

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

5