US v. Terrance William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00160-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998939107].. [12-4182]

Appeal: 12-4182

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4182

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00160-D-1)

Submitted:

August 30, 2012

Decided:

September 17, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas
G.
Walker,
United
States
Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4182

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Terrance Antwan Williams pled guilty without a plea
agreement
fifty

to

possession

grams

of

with

cocaine

intent

base,

in

to

distribute

violation

of

more

than

21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) (count one), possession of
a

firearm

violation

in
of

furtherance
18

U.S.C.

of

a

drug

§ 924(c)(1)

trafficking

(2006)

crime,
two),

(count

in
and

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (count three).
sentenced

Williams

imprisonment

on

as

count

a

career

one,

a

The district court

offender

consecutive

to

262

sentence

months’
of

sixty

months’ imprisonment on count two, and a concurrent sentence of
120 months’ imprisonment on count three, for a total sentence of
322

months’

imprisonment.

This

court

ultimately

reversed

Williams’ conviction on count three, vacated his sentence, and
remanded

for

649 F.3d

237

resentencing
(4th

Cir.

under

2011)

(en

United
banc).

States

v.

United

Simmons,
States

v.

Williams, 449 F. App’x 246 (4th Cir. 2011) (No. 09–4065).
On remand, the district court sentenced Williams to
204 months’ imprisonment on count one, a sentence resulting from
an upward variance from his advisory Guidelines range of 140 to
175

months’

imprisonment

on

that

count,

and

a

sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment on count two.

2

consecutive
On appeal,

Appeal: 12-4182

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

Williams challenges his sentence on count one, arguing that it
is substantively unreasonable.

We affirm.

As we have explained, “no matter what provides the
basis for a deviation from the Guidelines range[,] we review the
resulting sentence only for reasonableness.”
Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 164 (4th Cir. 2008).
an

abuse-of-discretion

552 U.S.

38,

51

standard.

(2007).

In

In doing so, we apply

Gall

assessing

United States v.

v.

States,

sentencing

a

United

court’s

decision to vary from a defendant’s Guidelines range, this court
“we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect

to

range.”

the

extent

of

the

divergence

from

the

sentencing

United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,

123 (4th Cir. 2007).

We will find a sentence to be unreasonable

“[i]f [the sentencing] court provides an inadequate statement of
reasons or relies on improper factors in imposing a sentence
outside the properly calculated advisory sentencing range.”
Williams
discretion

in

argues

finding

that

that

warranted in this case.

the

such

district
an

court

extensive

Id.

abused

its

variance

was

However, we conclude after review of

the record that the court’s sentencing decision is reasonable in
light of Williams’ long history of recidivism, which reflects
his disrespect for the law, and the need for the sentence to
protect

the

public

and

to

deter
3

Williams.

The

court’s

Appeal: 12-4182

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

consideration of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
and articulation of its reasons for varying from the Guidelines
range

support

our

decision

to

defer

to

the

district

court’s

determination as to the extent of the variance.

See United

States

(4th

v.

Diosdado-Star,

630

F.3d

359,

366-67

Cir.)

(affirming substantive reasonableness of variance sentence six
years greater than Guidelines range because sentence was based
on

the

district

court’s

examination

of

relevant

§ 3553(a)

factors), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011); see also United
States v. Angle, 598 F.3d 352, 359 (7th Cir. 2010) (“All that
matters is that the sentence imposed be reasonable in relation
to the ‘package’ of reasons given by the court.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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

4