United States v. Williams , 250 F. App'x 84 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 5, 2007
    No. 07-30140
    Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:06-CR-20063-1
    Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Michael Anthony Williams appeals the sentence imposed following his
    guilty plea conviction for possession of child pornography. Williams argues that
    his sentence of 78 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable
    advisory sentencing guidelines range, is unreasonable because it is greater than
    necessary to meet the sentencing objectives of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). Williams
    asserts that his sentence should have been lower than the guidelines range.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 07-30140
    Williams did not raise a specific objection in the district court to the
    reasonableness of his sentence, which could result in review for plain error. See
    United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 
    485 F.3d 270
    , 272 (5th Cir. 2007). We
    need not decide whether plain error applies, however, because even under a
    reasonableness standard, Williams’s arguments fail.
    There is no dispute that the guidelines range was properly calculated.
    Thus, Williams’s sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of
    reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 
    435 F.3d 551
    , 553-54 (5th Cir.
    2006). In order to review a sentence for reasonableness, this court must examine
    whether the district court’s sentence failed to “account for a factor that should
    have received significant weight,” gave “significant weight to an irrelevant or
    improper factor,” or represented “a clear error of judgment in balancing the
    sentencing factors.” United States v. Nikonova, 
    480 F.3d 371
    , 376 (5th Cir.
    2007), petition for cert. filed (May 21, 2007)(No. 06-11834). A review of the
    record results in the finding that Williams’s sentence does not fall “so far afoul”
    of one of these standards. See 
    id.
    Williams also argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law
    because this court’s application of a presumption of reasonableness to sentences
    imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is in violation of the Sixth
    Amendment and the principles announced in United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005). He concedes that the argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent but
    raises it to preserve it for further review.
    Williams’s argument is foreclosed by Rita v. United States, 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    ,
    2462-66 (2007), wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the use of a presumption
    of reasonableness to review sentences imposed within the guidelines range.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-30140

Citation Numbers: 250 F. App'x 84

Judges: Clement, Davis, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/5/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023