US v. Garworth William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cr-02118-GRA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998916192].. [12-4144]

Appeal: 12-4144

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/15/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4144

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-02118-GRA-1)

Submitted:

August 7, 2012

Decided:

August 15, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4144

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/15/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Garworth Williams pled guilty without a plea agreement
to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1708 (2006).

The district court

calculated Williams’ Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines

Manual

(2011)

and

sentenced

imprisonment
imprisonment.

at

fifty-one

Williams

to

months’

fifty-one

to

sixty

months’

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence.
Williams was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so.
a brief.

We affirm.
This

court

standard.”

reviews

“under

reasonableness

This

The Government declined to file

a

Williams’

deferential

sentence

for

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007).

review

entails

appellate

the

the

sentence.

Id. at 51.

In determining procedural reasonableness, this court

defendant’s

the

advisory

district
Guidelines

court

of

both

and

whether

reasonableness

of

procedural

considers

substantive

consideration

properly

range,

gave

calculated
the

parties

the
an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selected a sentence based on
2

Appeal: 12-4144

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/15/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

clearly erroneous facts, or failed to explain sufficiently the
selected sentence.
significant

Id. at 49-51.

procedural

error,

If the sentence is free of

this

court

reviews

it

for

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.”

Id. at 51.

If the sentence is within

the properly calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption

on

appeal

reasonable.

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217

(4th Cir. 2010).

that

the

sentence

is

substantively

Such a presumption is rebutted only by a

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the

§ 3553(a)

445 F.3d

375,

factors.”
379

(4th

United
Cir.

2006)

States

v.

(internal

Montes-Pineda,
quotation

marks

omitted).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
and

considered

the

advisory

Guidelines

range,

heard

argument

from counsel, and gave Williams the opportunity to allocute.
The court considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained that
the within-Guideline sentence of fifty-one months’ imprisonment
was warranted in light of Williams’ timely admission of guilt
and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of
Williams’ offense, to provide just punishment, to deter future
criminal

conduct

by

Williams,

and

to

protect

the

public.

Williams does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on
appeal

that

the

within-Guidelines
3

sentence

is

substantively

Appeal: 12-4144

Doc: 19

reasonable.

Filed: 08/15/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Williams.
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 Williams, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Williams requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel 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 a copy thereof

was served on Williams.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4