United States v. Williams , 365 F. App'x 478 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-5089
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TUWANA WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-7)
    Submitted:    January 8, 2010                 Decided:   February 16, 2010
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jessica Salvini, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tuwana Williams pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
    to utter counterfeit securities, 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (2006), and was
    sentenced    to    fifteen         months   imprisonment.        Williams      appeals.
    Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), in which she asserts that there are no
    meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district
    court erred in holding Williams responsible for the total loss
    and number of victims attributable to the entire conspiracy and
    whether the court erred in refusing to impose a below-Guidelines
    sentence.    For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    The Guidelines provide that a defendant is responsible
    for “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in
    furtherance       of   .   .   .    jointly       undertaken   criminal      activity.”
    U.S.   Sentencing          Guidelines       Manual     §   1B1.3(a)(1)(B)       (2007).
    Williams admitted that she introduced other individuals to the
    counterfeit check-cashing scheme and that she was aware of the
    other participants.            Accordingly, the district court did not
    clearly err in attributing to her the total loss and number of
    victims associated with the underlying conspiracy.                           See United
    States v. Osborne, 
    514 F.3d 377
    , 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing
    standard).
    Next,     counsel       questions      whether    the   court    erred   in
    denying Williams’ request for a below-Guidelines sentence.                            We
    2
    review    a   sentence       for    reasonableness,             applying          an    abuse   of
    discretion standard.             Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 46
    (2007).       This review requires appellate consideration of both
    the   procedural      and     substantive         reasonableness            of     a    sentence.
    
    Id.
          After      determining       whether          the    district       court       properly
    calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, this court
    must then consider whether the district court considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)         (2006)      factors,             analyzed       any       arguments
    presented      by     the    parties,      and          sufficiently         explained          the
    selected      sentence.          Gall,    
    552 U.S. at 49-50
    ;    see    United
    States v. Rita, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 346-47 (2007); United States v.
    Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 330 (4th Cir. 2009).                               Finally, we review
    the   substantive      reasonableness             of    the    sentence,          “taking    into
    account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
    of any variance from the Guidelines range.”                                United States v.
    Pauley, 
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted).                 This court applies a presumption
    of    correctness      to    a   sentence         within       the       properly-calculated
    Guidelines range.           Rita, 
    551 U.S. at 346-47
    .
    Here,     the        district        court         correctly             calculated
    Williams’ Guidelines range and, after hearing her arguments for
    a     below-Guidelines           sentence,         imposed           a     within-Guidelines
    sentence of fifteen months.               We find that the district court’s
    explanation was sufficient to show that the court conducted the
    3
    sort of individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall
    and   Carter.            Moreover,    Williams          has     failed    to     rebut    the
    presumption         of   reasonableness       accorded          her    within-Guidelines
    sentence.       Therefore,       we    find           that    Williams’     sentence       is
    reasonable.
    Williams has also filed a supplemental pro se brief in
    which she asks this court to grant a sentence reduction and
    allow her to complete the remainder of her sentence on house
    arrest.     However, Williams may only seek this relief by first
    filing    in    the      district     court       a    motion    for     modification      of
    sentence pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(3) (2006).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.        We    therefore      affirm    the       district       court’s    judgment.
    This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing,
    of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
    for further review.           If the client requests that a petition be
    filed,    but       counsel   believes       that       such    a     petition    would    be
    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
    withdraw from representation.                 Counsel’s motion must state that
    a copy thereof was served on the client.                        We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    4
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-5089

Citation Numbers: 365 F. App'x 478

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/16/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023