United States v. Jimmy Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4921
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jerry Thomas Williamson, a/k/a
Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson,
a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss, a/k/a
Jerminie Thomas Williamson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00183-MOC-DCK-1)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee Williams appeals the twenty-four-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised
release. Finding no error, we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court erred in
revoking his supervised release rather than allowing him to
continue on supervision and pursue mental health treatment
outside of prison. Williams failed to raise this argument
before the district court, therefore we decline to consider it
on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993) (“[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal generally
will not be considered . . . [unless] refusal to consider the
newly-raised issue would be plain error or would result in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.”). Moreover, we conclude
that Williams’ twenty-four-month revocation sentence is within
the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir.
2006).
In determining the sentence to impose upon revocation
of Williams’ supervised release, the district court considered
the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Sentencing
Guidelines manual, the statutory requirements, and the relevant
factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006). The court also considered Williams’
2
argument for a sentence at the low end of the range and the
government’s argument for a sentence at the higher end. Noting
Williams’ extensive criminal history and the need for
deterrence, the court imposed a revocation sentence in the
middle of the relevant range, to be followed by three years of
supervised release.
This twenty-four-month revocation sentence is not
plainly unreasonable. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437-39.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. 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