US v. James William
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00206-FL-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998569050].. [10-4355]
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES JOHN WILLIAMS, a/k/a Shy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00206-FL-2)
Submitted:
March 29, 2011
Decided:
April 15, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Eric D. Goulian, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM:
James
John
Williams
pled
guilty,
without
a
plea
agreement, to two counts of distribution of five grams or more
of cocaine base (“crack”), and aiding and abetting the same, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 814(a) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006).
The
district
court
sentenced
Williams
within
the
advisory
Guidelines range to concurrent ninety-eight-month terms on each
count.
Williams
unreasonable.
appeals,
claiming
Williams
Additionally,
that
his
argues
sentence
that
the
is
recent
changes to the statutory provisions and Sentencing Guidelines
relevant
to
crack
cocaine
offenses,
contained
in
the
Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, 1 apply in this case, and thus serve to
reduce his sentencing range.
sentence
and
remand
this
Williams asks us to vacate his
case
to
the
resentencing pursuant to these amendments.
district
court
for
For the reasons that
follow, we affirm Williams’ sentence.
This
applying
States,
an
552
court
abuse
U.S.
of
38,
reviews
a
sentence
for
discretion
standard.
51
see
(2007);
also
Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).
1
reasonableness,
Gall
United
v.
United
States
v.
This review requires
Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) (codified in
scattered sections of Title 21 of the United States Code).
2
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 3
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and
sufficiently
“Regardless
of
explained
whether
the
the
below,
or
an
individualized
district
within-Guidelines
record
selected
court
sentence,
assessment
facts of the case before it.”
it
based
Id.
sentence.
imposes
must
on
an
place
the
above,
on
the
particular
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Williams
does
not
dispute
the
calculation
of
his
Guidelines range, but argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the court failed to carefully consider the
§ 3553(a)
factors
and
provide
an
adequate
reason
for
sentence.
A district court is not required to “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” on the record.
its
United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
The
sentencing court’s explanation must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy
the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the
parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercise [its]
own
legal
decisionmaking
authority.’”
3
United
States
v.
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 4
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
After
reviewing
the
district
court
properly
considered
analyzed
the
arguments
record,
presented
we
the
by
the
conclude
§
that
3553(a)
parties,
thorough explanation of the sentence it selected.
the
factors,
and
gave
a
We therefore
hold that Williams’ sentence is procedurally reasonable.
Where there is “no significant procedural error,” we
next
assess
taking
the
“‘into
including
the
substantive
account
extent
the
of
reasonableness
totality
any
of
variance
of
the
the
from
sentence,
circumstances,
the
Guidelines
United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th
range.’”
Cir.) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.
307
(2010).
Guidelines
If
range,
reasonable.
the
sentence
this
Court
is
may
within
consider
the
it
appropriate
presumptively
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
Citing Rita and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.
85 (2007), Williams argues that his Guidelines sentence should
not be accorded a presumption of reasonableness, because the
sentencing
offenses
is
disparity
not
review process.
courts
to
for
based
on
crack
cocaine
empirical
and
evidence
powder
and
a
cocaine
thorough
However, Kimbrough does not require appellate
discard
“the
presumption
4
of
reasonableness
for
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 5
sentences based on non-empirically grounded Guidelines.”
United
States
Cir.),
v.
Mondragon-Santiago,
564
F.3d
357,
366
(5th
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009); see also United States v.
Talamantes,
While
620
F.3d
“district
Guidelines
for
901,
courts
policy
901
(8th
certainly
reasons
Cir.
2010)
may
disagree
and
may
(per
adjust
curiam).
with
a
the
sentence
accordingly[,] . . . if they do not, [appellate courts] will not
second-guess
simply
their
because
based.”
the
decisions
under
particular
Mondragon-Santiago,
a
more
Guideline
564
F.3d
is
at
lenient
not
367.
standard
empiricallyWe
therefore
conclude that the presumption of reasonableness applies to our
review of Williams’ sentence.
that
Williams
failed
to
Moreover, because we conclude
overcome
the
presumption
of
reasonableness for his within-Guidelines sentence, we hold that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
him within the Guidelines range to conccurrent terms of ninetyeight months’ imprisonment.
Finally, Williams asks us to vacate his sentence and
remand this case to the district court pursuant to the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduces the cocaine powder/cocaine
base disparity by amending the drug quantities triggering the
statutory penalties.
retroactive
and
is
However, the Fair Sentencing Act is not
only
applicable
to
defendants
their offenses after its effective date.
5
who
commit
Williams’ criminal
Case: 10-4355
Document: 68
Date Filed: 04/15/2011
Page: 6
conduct predated the effective date of the Act and thus it does
not apply. 2
Accordingly, we reject this contention.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
we
affirm
Williams’
criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir. 2010);
United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110, 114-15 (3d Cir. 2010);
United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900, 909 n.7 (8th Cir. 2010),
petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Feb. 24, 2011)
(No. 10-9224); United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803, 814 (7th
Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar.
4, 2011) (No. 10-9409); United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343,
1346 (11th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __
(U.S. Feb. 15, 2011) (No. 10-9271); United States v. Carradine,
621 F.3d 575, 580 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, __ U.S.L.W. __
(U.S. Mar. 21, 2011) (No. 10-8937).
6
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?