United States v. Karyea Williams , 607 F. App'x 326 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4869
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARYEA WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00816-TMC-1)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karyea Williams appeals his conviction and the 262-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and
possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). On
appeal, Williams’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that he found no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams’
sentence is reasonable. Williams was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once
we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed “must be sufficient,
but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of
sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). If the sentence imposed is
2
within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d
148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015). The presumption may be rebutted by a
showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court
committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing
Williams’ sentence and, thus, did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing him to 262 months’ imprisonment. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for review. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his 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,
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
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4