United States v. Williams ( 2013 )

12-3925cr
United States v. Williams
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 27th day of August, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 United States of America,
14
15 Appellee,
16
17 v. 12-3925
18
19 Gary Williams,
20
21 Defendant-Appellant.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25 FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLANT: Gary Williams, pro se,
26 Folkston, GA.
27
28
29 FOR APPELLEE: Alicyn L. Cooley and Susan
30 Corkery, Assistant United
31 States Attorneys, Eastern
32 District of New York,
33 Brooklyn, NY.
1 Appeal from an order of the United States District
2 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5 Appellant Gary Williams, pro se, appeals from the
6 district court’s order denying his motion made pursuant to
7 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591 to the United
8 States Sentencing Guidelines for reduction of an imposed
9 term of imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity
10 with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the
11 case, and the issues on appeal.
12 We review de novo a district court’s determination as
13 to whether the defendant’s sentence was based on a
14 sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the
15 Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Williams, 551
16 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009). After an independent review
17 of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for
18 substantially the same reasons articulated by the district
19 court judge in his well-reasoned decision filed September
20 12, 2012.
21 We have considered all of Williams’s remaining
22 arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly,
2
1 for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the order of the
2 district court.
3
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
3