United States v. Williams ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COREY WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District
Judge. (CR-04-51)
Submitted: July 16, 2007 Decided: August 6, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Williams pled guilty to a superseding indictment
charging him with possession of contraband (marijuana) in prison in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) (2000). He was sentenced to
twelve months of imprisonment based on a properly-calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range of six to twelve months. In his
original brief, Williams objects to the fact that his prior
convictions, which were not admitted by him, were used to increase
his criminal history under the Guidelines, which ultimately
increased his sentence. Williams alleges that this usage violates
the Sixth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s opinions in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We have rejected this
claim. United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005).
After Williams filed his initial brief, the Supreme Court
issued its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). We ordered additional briefing in light of Booker. In his
supplemental brief, Williams concedes that he cannot show that the
district court plainly erred by sentencing him under the
then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, because he cannot show he was
prejudiced thereby, e.g. he cannot show that being sentenced under
the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines affected the outcome of his
sentence. Thus, he has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
- 2 -
See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005)
(discussing Booker plain error review).
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 -