United States v. Anita Williams , 467 F. App'x 194 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANITA LAVON WILLIAMS, a/k/a Lavon Williams, a/k/a Sylvia
Hayes, a/k/a Akeen Lewis, a/k/a Betty Davis, a/k/a Stacy
Meadows, a/k/a Keith Chase, a/k/a April Shoulders, a/k/a
Beverly Purdue,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00010-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anita Lavon Williams pled guilty to one count of mail
fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011), and was sentenced
to an above-Guidelines term of fifty-four months imprisonment.
Williams appeals her sentence, arguing that it was unreasonably
high and an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Williams had fifteen criminal history points, which
placed her in criminal history category VI. Her advisory
Guidelines range was 37-46 months. The district court
characterized its decision to sentence Williams above the
Guidelines range as both a departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (2010), and a variance pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). The court considered Williams’
long record of fraud offenses, including ten worthless check
convictions which were not counted in her criminal history
score, see USSG § 4A1.3 cmt. n.8, and the fact that she
attempted to extort money from the victim after her arrest. The
district court decided that a one-level departure was
insufficient and a two-level departure was necessary to achieve
a sentence that took into account Williams’ past criminal
conduct, reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted
respect for the law, and served to protect the public.
We review a sentence, including a sentence outside the
Guidelines range, for procedural and substantive reasonableness.
2
United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007); United
States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). Here, after review of the
record, we conclude that the sentence was both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The court had a reasoned basis for
its decision to impose a sentence above the Guidelines range and
made an individualized statement explaining its decision.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3