United States v. Timothy Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY RAMEEK WILLIAMS, a/k/a Eazy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00033-GMG-JES-1)
Submitted: November 6, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jarod James Douglas,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Rameek Williams pleaded guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)
& 846 (2012). He appeals his 188-month sentence. Counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising for the court’s consideration whether the district court
abused its discretion ordering a sentence to run consecutive “to
any future state sentence that may be imposed,” rather than any
anticipated state sentence. (Sentencing Tr. at 20). Williams
has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising issues challenging
the sentence. The Government did not file a brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Diosado-Star, 630 F.3d
359, 363 (4th Cir. 2011). This review requires consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural
reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,
considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
2
sentence. Id. “Regardless of whether the district court
imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). If we find “no significant procedural error,”
we assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
“into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United
States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Because there was no objection to the district court’s
direction that Williams’ sentence run consecutive to “any” state
sentence, rather than “any anticipated” state sentence, that may
be imposed, review is for plain error. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). To demonstrate
plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was an error; (2)
the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even
if the defendant meets his burden in this regard, we will
exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it
“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). In Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468
3
(2012), the Supreme Court held that sentencing courts have
discretion to order federal sentences to run consecutive to any
anticipated state sentence. Here, the amended judgment
demonstrates that the district court ordered Williams’ sentence
to run consecutively to any sentence imposed by the state court
regarding two specific, related charges. Thus, the court’s
imposition of sentence was in accord with Setser.
We have considered Williams’ arguments raised in his
pro se supplemental brief and conclude that the arguments are
without merit. We further conclude that the within-Guidelines
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s amended 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
4
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5