United States v. Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4368
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE TIRRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Cup, a/k/a Reese, a/k/a
Reese Cup,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00088-MSD-DEM-1)
Argued: March 23, 2011 Decided: May 12, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria,
Virginia, Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Darryl J. Mitchell, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Williams was convicted of multiple counts of drug
and firearms offenses, including possession with intent to
distribute (“PWID”) more than five grams of crack, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district
court sentenced Williams to 180 months, the minimum sentence
allowed under the statutes then in effect. Williams appeals,
challenging only his sentence. We affirm.
Williams first argues that his sentence should be governed
by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124
Stat. 2372 (the “FSA”). Among other things, the FSA increases
the quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger the mandatory
minimum sentences set forth in § 841; if the FSA were applicable
to this case, Williams would not have been subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence on the PWID charge. This court has
recently concluded, like every other circuit to have considered
the issue, that the FSA does not apply retroactively. See
United States v. Bullard, No. 09-5214 (filed May 6, 2011).
Because Williams was convicted and sentenced before the FSA took
effect, he was properly sentenced under the version of § 841
then in effect.
Williams also contends that the district court erred by
imposing a five-year consecutive sentence for his § 924(c)
3
conviction. Section 924(c) provides for a mandatory minimum
consecutive sentence “[e]xcept to the extent that a greater
minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by
any other provision of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
Williams, who had a prior felony drug conviction, argues that
because he was already subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum
sentence under § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), the mandatory minimum
sentence of § 924(c) should not apply. We have previously
rejected this argument, see United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d
415, 423 (4th Cir. 2001), and the Supreme Court recently
confirmed that Studifin’s construction of the statute was
correct, see Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18, 30-31
(2010).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we hereby affirm
Williams’s sentence.
AFFIRMED
4