United States v. Williams , 194 F. App'x 153 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COLEEN MILLICENT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:03-cr-00231-GRA)
Submitted: July 14, 2006 Decided: August 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, Isaac Louis
Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Coleen Millicent Williams appeals her ninety-seven month
prison sentence resulting from her conviction for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Williams’ attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams
has been notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Williams contends that her sentence was unreasonable.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing
court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing
guidelines, but still must calculate and consider the guideline
range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both
reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id.The district court properly calculated the sentencing
guideline range of seventy-eight to ninety-seven months’
imprisonment.* As Williams’ ninety-seven month prison sentence is
within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively
*
In so concluding, we reject any argument that the district
court abused its discretion by adding two levels to Williams’ base
offense level on account of her leadership role in the offense.
- 2 -
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.
2006). Williams has not rebutted that presumption as the district
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, considered
the guideline range, and weighed the relevant factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of the district court. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 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
- 3 -