United States v. Williams ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID A. WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00120)
Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Lloyd Snook, III, SNOOK & HAUGHEY, P.C., Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,
Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted David A. Williams of possession of a
firearm by a previously convicted felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Williams to
sixty-three months’ imprisonment under the then-mandatory
sentencing guidelines. The sentencing court also imposed an
identical alternative sentence, pursuant to United States v.
Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by 381
F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005),
on remand, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005). Williams appeals,
contending his sentence violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005).
The Sixth Amendment error in this case, if any, was
harmless because the district court imposed an identical
alternative sentence in accordance with Hammoud. See United
States v. Shatley, 448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2006). The district
court’s alternative sentence was within the range recommended by
the sentencing guidelines, and this court takes the district court
at its word when it states it would impose the same sentence under
the advisory guideline system. See id. at 267-68. Therefore, we
presume the district court properly considered the sentencing
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005), as required by United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-56
(4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.)
- 2 -
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); and United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006). Shatley, 448 F.3d at 268.
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
- 3 -