United States v. Williams , 280 F. App'x 304 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 07-9289)
Submitted: May 12, 2008 Decided: June 4, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bryan E.
Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Carnell Williams appealed the district court’s
sentence imposed after we remanded for resentencing consistent with
the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). See
United States v. Williams, No. 03-4418, 2005 WL 2464343 (4th Cir.
Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished) (affirming conviction but vacating and
remanding sentence). At resentencing, the court imposed the same
sentence, 262 months’ imprisonment, or the bottom of the Sentencing
Guidelines range of imprisonment. On appeal, Williams claimed the
court erred by giving a sentence within the Guidelines a presumption
of reasonableness and defaulting to a Guidelines sentence without
giving full consideration to the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2008) sentencing factors. He also claimed the court gave
undue weight to acquitted conduct in determining his Guidelines
sentence. Finding no error, we affirmed. See United States v.
Williams, No. 06-5004, 2007 WL 3390924 (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 2007)
(unpublished). On March 24, 2008, the Supreme Court granted
Williams’ petition for writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s
opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007).
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must
first properly calculate the Guidelines range. The Guidelines are
“the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall, 128 S. Ct.
at 596. Next, the court should give the parties the opportunity to
argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The court is
then instructed to consider the § 3553(a) factors in light of the
parties’ requests with respect to the sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d
at 473. In the Fourth Circuit, “[a] sentence within the proper
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). This
presumption can be rebutted only by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). The
district court, however, must not presume that a sentence within the
Guidelines is reasonable. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596-97. The court
must instead “make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.” Id. at 597.
Upon review, we must first determine whether the district
court committed any significant procedural error, Gall, 128 S. Ct.
at 597, such as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)
the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
- 3 -
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Id. If we find the sentence is procedurally
sound, we must next “consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence.” Id. We must “take into account the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range,
the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption
of reasonableness.” Id.
We find the district court appropriately followed the
post-Booker sentencing procedure. It properly determined the
offense level and criminal history category. We find no procedural
error. We further find the sentence was substantively reasonable.
There is no evidence the district court considered a sentence within
the Guidelines to be presumptively reasonable. We further find the
court did not give disproportionate weight to the acquitted conduct
which was part of the relevant conduct.
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ sentence. 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 -