US v. Karyea William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cr-00816-TMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999608399].. [14-4869]

Appeal: 14-4869

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4869

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00816-TMC-1)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4869

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Karyea Williams appeals his conviction and the 262-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and
possessing

a

firearm

in

furtherance

of,

a

drug

trafficking

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012).

On

appeal, Williams’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

asserting

that

he

found

no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams’
sentence is reasonable.

Williams was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.
In

reviewing

district

court

a

did

sentence,
not

we

commit

must
any

first

ensure

“significant

that

the

procedural

error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence.

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

Once

we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must
consider

the

substantive

“tak[ing]

into

account

the

reasonableness
totality

of

of
the

the

sentence,

circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The sentence imposed “must be sufficient,

but

necessary,”

not

greater

sentencing.

than

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

2

to

satisfy

the

purposes

of

If the sentence imposed is

Appeal: 14-4869

Doc: 24

within

the

Filed: 06/24/2015

appropriate

Pg: 3 of 4

Guidelines

range,

we

consider

it

presumptively reasonable.

United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d

148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015).

The presumption may be rebutted by a

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.”
F.3d

375,

379

(4th

Upon

omitted).
committed

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

review,

no

Cir.

2006)

we

procedural

(internal

conclude

or

that

quotation

the

substantive

marks

district

error

in

court

imposing

Williams’ sentence and, thus, did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing

him

States v.

to

Lynn,

262

592

months’

F.3d

See

576,

572,

imprisonment.

Cir.

2010)

the

entire

578

(4th

United

(providing standard of review).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

record and have found no meritorious issues for review.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We
court

requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his 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

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

such
this

a

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Williams.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3

Appeal: 14-4869

Doc: 24

materials

before

Filed: 06/24/2015

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4