United States v. Williams , 426 F. App'x 192 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY LYNN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-01201-GRA-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob
Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Lynn Williams appeals his forty-six-month
sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
one count of making a false statement to a bank in connection
with a loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014(West Supp. 2010). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has
examined the record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but questioning the reasonableness of Williams’ within-
Guidelines sentence. Williams was informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one. We affirm.
We review a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review
requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Finally, we
review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
2
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
Here, the district court properly calculated Williams’
advisory Guidelines sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors,
and sentenced Williams within the Guidelines range to forty-six
months in prison. Although brief, the court provided an
explanation for its rejection of counsel’s request for a
downward variance and explained the reasons for the sentence
imposed. We conclude that Williams’ sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Williams requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Williams. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4