United States v. Williams ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4551
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD MONTREAL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-307)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Kearns
Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Howard Montreal Williams pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). He was sentenced to forty-eight months of imprisonment.
On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether
Williams’ sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to
do so, Williams has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.
Williams argues that his forty-eight-month sentence was
unreasonable. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no
longer bound by the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In
determining a sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are
still required to calculate and consider the guideline range
prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. As stated in Hughes, this
court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable
and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47.
Further, this court has stated that “while we believe that the
appropriate circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the
guideline range will depend on the facts of individual cases, we
have no reason to doubt that most sentences will continue to fall
within the applicable guideline range.” United States v. White,
- 2 -
405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 668 (2005).
Indeed, “a sentence imposed ‘within the properly calculated
Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.’” United
States v. Green, F.3d , No. 05-4720, 2006 WL 267217, at *5
(4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (citing United States v. Newsom, 428 F.3d
685, 687 (7th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, Jan. 27, 2006
(No. 05-8986)).
We find that the district court properly calculated the
guideline range and appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory. The court sentenced Williams only after considering and
examining the factors set forth in § 3553(a). The court also
clearly stated that it deemed the sentence “reasonable” under the
circumstances. Based on these factors, and because the court
sentenced Williams within the applicable guideline range and the
statutory maximum, we find that Williams’ sentence of forty-eight
months of imprisonment is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 3 -
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
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 -