United States v. Williams , 241 F. App'x 911 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00301-D)
Submitted: July 16, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United State Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Williams pled guilty to possessing a firearm,
having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924. The district court sentenced Williams to
eighty-five months in prison. Williams timely appealed, arguing
that the district court miscalculated his criminal history points
and erroneously determined that he held a leadership role. We
affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence to
determine whether the district court has correctly calculated the
advisory guidelines range and has considered the range, as well as
the factors set out in § 3553(a), and whether the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.
2005).
First, Williams argues the district court misapplied
U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, comment. (n.11) (2005),
resulting in an increased criminal history score. We conclude the
district court correctly interpreted § 4A1.2 and properly applied
the guideline when it calculated Williams’s criminal history score.
Williams also argues the district court erroneously
assigned him two points for holding a leadership role in criminal
activity pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(c). We conclude the district
court properly applied a leadership enhancement because Williams
- 2 -
provided the funds involved in the transaction and directed another
participant to purchase a specific type of firearms.
We therefore affirm Williams’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 -