US v. Gregory Todd William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00018-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788681].. [15-4494]

Appeal: 15-4494

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY TODD WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00018-WO-1)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

April 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Eric L.
Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4494

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gregory Todd Williams pleaded guilty to receipt of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1)
(2012).

The district court varied below the Guidelines range

and sentenced Williams to 121 months of imprisonment, and he now
appeals.

Finding no error, we affirm.

On

appeal,

Williams

challenges

the

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence, arguing that the extent of the
departure

was

not

sufficient

to

take

into

account

Williams’

personal characteristics, the fact that the child pornography
Guidelines are based largely on Congressional direction to the
Sentencing

Commission

empirical
failure

evidence,
to

relative

to
and

distinguish

levels

reasonableness,

of

raise
the

offense

child

between

an

We

abuse

rather

pornography

defendants

culpability.

applying

levels

of

Guidelines’

based

review

a

than

on

their

sentence

discretion

for

standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see also United
States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir. 2016).
doing,

we

error,”

examine

including

the

sentence

“failing

to

for

“significant

calculate

In so

procedural

(or

improperly

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory,
[(2012)]

failing
factors,

to

consider

selecting

a

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

on

§ 3553(a)
clearly

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
2

Appeal: 15-4494

Doc: 33

sentence”.

Filed: 04/05/2016

Gall,

552

U.S.

Pg: 3 of 3

at

51.

We

substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

then

review

the

“Any sentence that

is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.”

White, 810 F.3d at 230 (internal

quotation marks omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
Williams has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
applied to his sentence.

The district court properly calculated

the advisory Guidelines range, responded to each of the parties’
sentencing

arguments,

and

thoroughly

explained

including the extent of the variance.

the

sentence,

Based on the factors

identified by the district court, the sentence is sufficient,
but

not

greater

than

necessary,

to

accomplish

the

goals

of

§ 3553(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3