US v. Stacy Williams

Filing 920100210

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4507 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STACY RENEE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-01122-PMD-2) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 10, 2010 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Lebanon, Virginia, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stacy Renee Williams pled no contest to one count of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of crack cocaine and a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Under the 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009). properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines, her range of imprisonment was forty-one to fifty-one months. court, after giving consideration to the The district factors sentencing under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) and the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing, varied downward, She filed sentencing Williams to eighteen months' imprisonment. a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Williams states that "[s]entencing based upon anything other than a 1 to 1 crack to powder cocaine ration [sic] is inherently unfair and unreasonable," citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009), as well as several We district court cases. disagree. See Appellant's brief at 8, 10-12. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). the Id. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 This review requires appellate consideration of both and substantive reasonableness is of a by sentence. reviewing procedural Procedural reasonableness 2 determined whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory Guidelines range and then considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. "Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an facts F.3d `individualized of the case 330 assessment' it." based United on States the v. particular Carter, before (4th 564 325, Cir. 2009). Substantive reasonableness of the sentence is determined by "taking into 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) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We procedurally find and the district court's reasonable. sentence was both we substantively Accordingly, affirm the sentence. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would 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?