USA v. Iry William


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-50573 Affirmed 17-50574 Affirmed 17-50575 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES Mandate issue date is 04/30/2018 for Appellant Iry Williams [17-50573, 17-50574, 17-50575]

Download PDF
Case: 17-50573 Document: 00514418832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50573 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. IRY WILLIAMS, also known as Iry James Williams, Defendant - Appellant Cons. w/No. 17-50574 and Cons. w/No. 17-50575 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. IRY WILLIAMS, Defendant – Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:16-CR-68-1 USDC No. 7:16-CR-206-1 USDC No. 7:16-CR-69-1 Case: 17-50573 Document: 00514418832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 No. 17-50573 c/w No. 17-50574 c/w No. 17-50575 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Iry Williams was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, one count of assault upon a federal officer, and one count of escape. The sentences for these offenses were imposed to run consecutively, for a total of 260 months in prison, and he also received three-year terms of supervised release for each offense that were imposed to run concurrently. Now, he argues that the district court plainly erred under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), by grounding his sentence in rehabilitation concerns. Tapia held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) “prevents a sentencing court from imposing or lengthening a prison term because the court thinks an offender will benefit from a prison treatment program.” 564 U.S. at 334. Treatment may be an “additional justification” for a term of imprisonment but may not be the “dominant factor” underlying a prison sentence. United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655, 660 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Williams has not demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 419, 423-24 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This is because the record supports a conclusion that, while Williams’s need for rehabilitation may have been one of the district court’s sentencing concerns, it was not a dominant factor underlying the district court’s choice of sentence. See Garza, 706 F.3d at 660; Escalante-Reyes, 698 F.3d at 423-24. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?