United States v. Williamson , 221 F. App'x 291 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4719
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMIE TASHAWN WILLIAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-00757-TLW)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: March 15, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Tashawn Williamson pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000), and was sentenced to 100 months in prison. Williamson
appealed, and we vacated his sentence in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), concluding that the sentence violated
his Sixth Amendment rights. On remand, the district court applied
a cross-reference to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) §
2A2.1(a)(1) (2002) (Assault with Intent to Commit Murder; Attempted
Murder), considered the advisory guideline range and the factors in
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and reimposed a
100-month sentence. Williamson appeals, and we affirm his
sentence.
Williamson contends that the district court should have
applied the cross-reference in USSG § 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault),
not USSG § 2A2.1(a)(1). Where, as here, the facts are not
contested, the issue is a legal one, and this court’s review is de
novo. United States v. Fullilove, 388 F.3d 104, 106 (4th Cir.
2004). Our careful review of the record leads us to conclude that
the district court properly applied the cross-reference to USSG
§ 2A2.1(a)(1). Williamson and his friend, Mike Jefferson, saw the
victim outside a convenience store, and, after a brief
conversation, Jefferson told Williamson to “wet” the victim.
Williamson responded by pulling a gun, telling the victim he was
- 2 -
going to die, and firing twice at the victim from about twelve feet
away. We conclude that the district court did not err in applying
the cross-reference to § 2A2.1(a)(1).
Accordingly, we affirm Williamson’s 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 -