United States v. Williams , 404 F. App'x 813 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4772
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT LOUIS WILLIAMS,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00100-1)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2010            Decided:   December 6, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
    Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.      R. Booth
    Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Steven R. Ruby, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert       Louis      Williams         appeals         the     eighteen-month
    sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release.                                   He
    contends that the district court erred in finding that he acted
    in a threatening manner toward the director of the halfway house
    in    which    he    was    required     to    reside        as    a     condition      of   his
    supervised release and was therefore dismissed from the halfway
    house.        We discern no clear error in this finding and also
    conclude      that     this       finding     did      not    affect         the   revocation
    determination        or     the     sentence       imposed        upon       revocation,     and
    therefore affirm.
    Williams admitted to the alleged violations for using
    marijuana      and        Percocet,     and        failing        to     attend       scheduled
    counseling.         He denied the allegation that he was dismissed from
    the   halfway       house    for    acting     in      a   threatening         manner.       The
    district court heard evidence from the director of the halfway
    house that, during a random search of the men’s dormitory, the
    director       stopped        and      pat-searched           Williams.                He     had
    approximately $200 in cash, a number of bus tokens, receipts and
    other items in his pockets.                 The director had Williams place the
    contents      of    his     pockets    onto        a   mattress        in     front    of    him.
    Williams was upset and agitated, but the director testified that
    this was Williams’ normal demeanor toward her.                                  The director
    testified that Williams then positioned himself between the two
    2
    bunks, blocking the director’s exit.                        She had to twice order him
    to    step    back      and    allow     her   to     move.        He    continued      to    be
    disrespectful toward her, seemingly intent on instigating the
    other residents.              The director testified that she did not feel
    safe.
    Williams        testified       that     he     did      not    threaten      the
    director,         but   that       he   thought     she      had     taken     some   of     his
    possessions and placed them in her own pocket.                                 He testified
    that he used his normal voice and demeanor, which, because of
    his       size,    could      be    intimidating,       but     that      he    would     never
    threaten a woman.
    After hearing the evidence, the district court found
    that Williams was discharged from the halfway house for “acting
    in    a    threatening        manner”    toward       the    director.         This   factual
    finding is not clearly erroneous.                     See United States v. Garnett,
    
    243 F.3d 824
    , 828 (4th Cir. 2001) (reviewing factual findings
    during supervised release proceedings for clear error).
    Moreover, we conclude that this factual finding did
    not affect the district court’s decision to revoke Williams’
    supervised release, nor did it affect the term of imprisonment
    imposed.          Revocation was mandatory based on Williams’ admitted
    drug related violations.                The advisory guideline range based on
    those violations was twenty-one to twenty-seven months.                                   After
    discussion with Williams concerning his adjustment on supervised
    3
    release     and    considering           Williams’       history     and      need     for
    treatment, the district court sentenced him to eighteen months’
    imprisonment      to    be    followed    by     forty   and    one-half      months    of
    supervised release.            In light of the downward variance imposed
    by   the   district      court,     we     conclude      that    the    finding      that
    Williams acted in a threatening manner toward the director of
    the halfway house did not affect his sentence.                       Accordingly, we
    affirm     Williams’         sentence     imposed     upon      revocation      of     his
    supervised release.            We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and   legal    contentions        are    adequately       presented    in     the
    materials      before    the     court    and     argument      would   not    aid     the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4772

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 813

Judges: Wilkinson, Keenan, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024