United States v. Dennis William

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4369853] [14-3895]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-3895
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dennis L. Williams
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: January 11, 2016
Filed: February 23, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Williams pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841. At sentencing, his advisory guideline range was calculated to be 130

Appellate Case: 14-3895

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369853

to 162 months. The district court1 sentenced him to 130 months. Williams now
appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court should have varied downward
from the guidelines. We affirm.2
When reviewing a sentence we apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We ensure the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors or failing to give adequate explanation for its chosen sentence. Id. at 51. If
there is no procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guideline
range. Id. Williams argues that the district court placed too much weight on his
criminal history and not enough on factors supporting a downward variance, such as
the environment in which Williams was raised, his renewed involvement in his
religion, and his completing carpentry and barber training in prison.
We conclude that the district court did not commit any procedural error or
otherwise abuse its discretion in sentencing Williams. The sentencing record shows
that the court considered Williams' arguments and elocution before imposing its
sentence. The court stated it understood Williams "really want[s] to be a useful and
productive citizen," as well as having "faith now . . . and that's very important to me."
In explaining its sentence a district court is only required to show it considered the
1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri
2

Williams has moved on appeal to file a pro se supplemental brief arguing his
sentence violates Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). A district court
is permitted under Alleyne to rely on facts not found by a jury when calculating the
sentencing guideline range to select a sentence within statutory limits. United States
v. Bennett, 765 F.3d 887, 897 (8th Cir. 2014). The motion to file a pro se brief is
denied.
-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3895

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369853

parties' arguments and had a reasoned basis for its sentence. United States v. Butler,
743 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 2014). The 130 month sentence imposed in this case was
the bottom of the guideline range and reasonable.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3895

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369853