UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4750
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAYSHAWN R. WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-04-397)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Taylor B. Stone, BREMNER, JANUS, COOK & MARCUS, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael
Steven Dry, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Christopher M. Kelly, Third-Year Law Student, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rayshawn R. Williams appeals his jury conviction and
fifty-seven month sentence for being an unlawful user of narcotics
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
(2000). Williams’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting the evidence
was insufficient to support his conviction and challenging the
district court’s obstruction of justice enhancement of Williams’
sentence, but stating that he found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Williams did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite
being notified of his opportunity to do so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
support Williams’ conviction. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942); United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
1998) (holding that appellate court does not review credibility of
witnesses and assumes jury resolved all contradictions in
testimony in favor of the government). The parties stipulated that
Williams was a user of illegal drugs at the time of his arrest and
that the firearm affected interstate commerce, and one police
officer testified Williams admitted he had obtained the gun.
Williams also asserts that the district court erroneously
determined that he testified falsely and in applying an obstruction
- 2 -
of justice enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3C1.1. When the guidelines are applied as advisory, the
court need only make factual findings by a preponderance of the
evidence, United States v. Bryant, 420 F.3d 652, 655-56 (7th Cir.
2005), and its fact finding concerning obstruction of justice is
reviewed for clear error, United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
560 (4th Cir. 2005). We find no such error. The testimony of
arresting police officers conflicted with Williams’ testimony that
he was not given Miranda warnings and that he had told the officers
he knew nothing of the gun. By convicting him, the jury clearly
rejected Williams’ testimony.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his 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 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
- 3 -
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -