United States v. Kevin Williams ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN WAYNE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00014-RJC-DSC-1)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Richard E. Beam, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BEAM, Gastonia,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wayne Williams appeals the 96-month sentence imposed after he pleaded
guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Williams’ counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams’ sentence is
reasonable. Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Williams has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief and has
not invoked the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First,
we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United
States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [we] . . . then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the
circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.
White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016).
We conclude that Williams’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and adequately explained why
it imposed Williams’ sentence. Further, the court did not err in considering Williams’ prior
convictions that did not factor into the computation of his criminal history category.
Finally, we conclude that Williams has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness
afforded his within-Guidelines-range sentence.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have found no
meritorious grounds 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, then 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3