UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN TERRELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-758)
Submitted: September 23, 2005 Decided: October 26, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Terrell Williams pled guilty to two counts of
armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000), and was
sentenced to 125 months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
addressing whether Williams was competent to testify, whether the
district court erred in denying a minor role adjustment at
sentencing, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2
(2000), and whether Williams’ sentence violates United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Although advised of his right to
file a supplemental pro se brief, Williams has not done so.
Counsel first addresses Williams’ competency to enter a
guilty plea. We have reviewed the transcript of Williams’ Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing and conclude that the district court properly
ensured that Williams was competent to plead guilty and that his
plea was knowing and voluntary. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S.
389, 400 (1993); United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th
Cir. 1999).
Next, counsel questions the district court’s denial of a minor
role adjustment at sentencing. Here, Williams either directly
planned or, at the very least, materially helped carry out both
robberies, was present when the robberies took place, and received
some of the proceeds. Accordingly, the district court did not
- 2 -
clearly err in denying Williams a minor participant adjustment.
United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989)
(providing standard of review for factual determinations, such as
whether the appellant’s conduct warrants a minor role sentencing
reduction).
Finally, counsel raises as a potential issue the validity
of Williams’ sentence under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). We review issues raised for the first time on appeal for
plain error. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th
Cir. 2005). In Hughes, we held that when a sentence calculated
under the Sentencing Guidelines exceeds the maximum sentence
authorized by facts found by the jury alone or admitted by the
defendant, the defendant could demonstrate plain error that
warranted resentencing under Booker. We find the district court
did not commit constitutional error, plain or otherwise, in
sentencing Williams because the term of imprisonment is not greater
than that authorized by facts admitted by him at his plea hearing
and at sentencing. Nor can Williams demonstrate that any error in
imposing his sentence under a mandatory guidelines scheme affected
his substantial rights. See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208
(4th Cir. 2005).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
in this case and found no error. Accordingly, we affirm Williams’
convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
- 3 -
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, 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 Williams. 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
- 4 -