United States v. Williams , 33 F. App'x 120 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 01-4873
    SHAELA CE WILLIAMS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-107)
    Submitted: April 18, 2002
    Decided: April 29, 2002
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assis-
    tant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
    lant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Shaela Ce Williams pled guilty to possession with intent to distrib-
    ute cocaine base (
    21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (West
    Supp. 2001)), and carrying a firearm during and relation to a drug
    trafficking crime (
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(i) (West 2001)). She
    was sentenced to a total of 181 months imprisonment. Williams noted
    a timely appeal and her counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
    issues for appeal. Williams was informed of her right to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, and she has not done so.
    Williams, through counsel, questions the district court’s decision
    not to award an adjustment based upon acceptance of responsibility.
    Prior to her arrest, Williams had advised law enforcement officers
    that she knew her co-defendant was a drug dealer and that she served
    as his "co-pilot" for the transactions. During her interview for the pre-
    sentence report, Williams retracted those statements, but maintained
    her guilty plea to the crimes. The probation officer recommended
    denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility due
    to Williams’ retractions. The district court accepted the probation
    officer’s recommendation and sentenced Williams to the statutory
    minimum for each crime.
    We find Williams’ sentence is appropriate under relevant statutory
    and guideline provisions. Because Williams did not object to the pre-
    sentence report, we review her claim for plain error. United States v.
    Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32 (1993). Furthermore, an adjustment
    based upon acceptance of responsibility lies squarely within the dis-
    trict court’s discretion. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1
    (2000). The district court questioned Williams regarding her two sto-
    ries and she responded that she did not know why she changed her
    mind. Throughout the proceedings, though, Williams consistently
    UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS                       3
    admitted her guilt to the crimes charged. Therefore, the district court
    did not abuse its discretion.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and find
    no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writ-
    ing, of her 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 cli-
    ent.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4873

Citation Numbers: 33 F. App'x 120

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023