United States v. Williams , 234 F. App'x 84 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KELVIN LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-378)
Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: July 11, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Christopher Todd Hagins,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, P.C.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Lamont Williams pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a
firearm and ammunition after previously being convicted of a
felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The
presentence report (“PSR”) classified Williams as a career offender
and assigned him an offense level of thirty-four with a criminal
history of VI, which produced a sentencing guideline range of 262
to 327 months of imprisonment. During a sentencing hearing where
neither party objected to the PSR, the district court accepted this
range; however, without explanation, the district court varied from
the range and sentenced Williams to two concurrent 120-month terms
of imprisonment. The United States appeals this sentence, arguing
that the sentence is unreasonable. We vacate the sentence and
remand for resentencing.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no
longer bound by the sentencing range prescribed by the guidelines.
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). When sentencing a defendant post-
Booker, a district court must still calculate the proper guideline
range and consider that range along with other relevant factors set
forth in the guidelines and in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
- 2 -
Supp. 2006). See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). If the district court
imposes a sentence outside of the guideline range, “[t]he district
court must articulate the reasons for the sentence imposed,
particularly explaining any departure or variance from the
guideline range” in light of the factors in § 3553(a). Moreland,
437 F.3d at 432; Green, 436 F.3d at 456. The explanation of a
sentence outside the guideline range “must be tied to the factors
set forth in § 3553(a) and must be accompanied by findings of fact
as necessary.” Moreland, 437 F.3d at 432. Moreover, “if the
sentence is imposed outside the Guideline range and the district
court provides an inadequate statement of reasons . . . in
departing from the Guidelines’ recommendation[,]” then that
sentence “will be found unreasonable and vacated.” Green, 436 F.3d
at 457; United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288-89 (4th Cir.
2006); Moreland, 437 F.3d at 436.
Here, the district court accepted the guideline range of
262 to 327 months. Before imposing sentence, the district court
discussed the case generally with Williams and his counsel. This
discussion centered on the fact that, although Williams had two
prior convictions for controlled substance offenses that qualified
him as a career offender, he had no other prior convictions for
which criminal history points were assessed in the PSR. Williams
also informed the court that he was thirty-four years old, had
- 3 -
graduated from high school, was married, had four children under
the age of fourteen, suffered from serious medical conditions
(including bronchitis, a heart murmur, and sleep apnea), and had
worked for a lumber company and as a cook in a restaurant before
his sleep apnea prevented him from working.
During this discussion, Williams’ counsel requested a
sentence below the advisory guideline range. In response, counsel
for the government reviewed Williams’ criminal history, contended
that the grounds on which Williams relied would not justify a
departure under the guidelines, and urged the district court to
impose a sentence within the guideline range. In sentencing
Williams to concurrent terms of 120 months of imprisonment
(a downward variance of 142 months below the advisory guideline
range), the district court offered no explanation for its decision
to impose such a dramatic variance. Although the government
objected based on the sentence being outside the guideline range,
the district court noted the objection but did not elaborate on the
basis for the sentence.
Under these circumstances, we vacate the sentence and
remand this case so that the district court can resentence Williams
in a manner consistent with our post-Booker precedent.* We express
no opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the 120-month sentence
*
We, of course, offer no criticism of the district court,
which did not have the benefit of Green, Moreland, or Hampton at
the time of sentencing.
- 4 -
is appropriate. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 5 -