US v. Eugene William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999931902-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00049-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999979632].. [16-4137]

Appeal: 16-4137

Doc: 32

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4137

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00049-BO-1)

Submitted:

October 28, 2016

Decided:

December 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C.
Leisten, Research & Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4137

Doc: 32

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Eugene Williams pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012),
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 924(c)

(2012).

The

district court sentenced Williams to 36 months of imprisonment
followed by 10 years of supervised release for the drug offense,
plus

the

months

statutory

of

mandatory

appeals.

imprisonment

for

minimum

the

consecutive

firearm

offense,

term
and

of
he

60
now

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Williams first argues that the district court failed to
comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by incorrectly informing him of
the possible term of supervised release for the drug offense and
failing to explain the nature of supervised release.

“Before

accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with
the defendant, must ensure that the defendant understands the
nature

of

the

charges

to

which

the

plea

is

offered,

any

mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the
various
guilty.”
2016).

rights

the

defendant

is

relinquishing

by

pleading

United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.
The court also must determine that the plea is voluntary

and that a factual basis exists for the plea.

Id.

While we

generally review the acceptance of a guilty plea for harmless
error, where “a defendant fails to move in the district court to
2

Appeal: 16-4137

Doc: 32

withdraw

Filed: 12/02/2016

his

or

her

guilty

Pg: 3 of 5

plea,

any

error

hearing is reviewed only for plain error.”

in

the

Rule

11

Id.

To demonstrate plain error, Williams must show (1) error,
(2)

that

rights.
2002).

was

plain,

and

United States v.
Moreover,

we

(3)

that

affected

his

substantial

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir.

will

not

exercise

our

discretion

to

recognize the error unless “the ‘error seriously affects the
fairness,

integrity[,]

proceedings.’”

or

public

reputation

of

the

judicial

Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 732 (1993)).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

the relevant legal authorities and conclude that Williams has
failed to demonstrate plain error.
Williams
adequately

also

explain

argues
its

that

the

imposition

district
of

a

court

failed

to

10-year

term

of

supervised release for the drug offense where the Guidelines
suggested a 3-year term for that count.

We review a sentence

for abuse of discretion, determining whether the sentence is
procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.

Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir. 2009).
examine

the

sentence

for

United

States

v.

In so doing, we first

“significant

procedural

error,”

including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to

consider

selecting

a

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

on
3

§ 3553(a)
clearly

[(2012)]

erroneous

factors,
facts,

or

Appeal: 16-4137

Doc: 32

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence”.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v.

We then “‘consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’”

United

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
In sentencing a defendant, a district court must conduct an
individualized

assessment

of

the

particular

facts

of

every

sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range.
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

Here, as Williams did not request a

sentence other than that imposed or outside of the Guidelines
range,

we

review

this

issue

for

plain

error.

See

United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)(“By drawing
arguments

from

§ 3553

for

a

sentence

different

than

the

one

ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the
district court of its responsibility to render an individualized
explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its
claim.”).
In the sentencing context, an error affects a defendant’s
substantial
sentence

rights

imposed

if

“was

otherwise be subject”.

the

defendant

longer

than

demonstrates

that

to

which

that
he

the
would

United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d

834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005)
4

Appeal: 16-4137

Doc: 32

(sentencing

Filed: 12/02/2016

error

affects

Pg: 5 of 5

substantial

rights

if

sentence

longer than defendant would otherwise have received).
conclude

that

Williams

has

failed

to

is

Here, we

demonstrate

that

the

court’s failure to conduct an individualized assessment resulted
in a term of supervised release longer than that to which he
would otherwise have been subject.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court
and

deny

Williams’

supplemental brief.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

motion

for

leave

to

file

a

pro

se

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5