UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4870
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ALLEN WILLIAMSON,
(a/k/a/Blazer),
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:03-cr-00381-TLW)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy Price Elmore, ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Allen Williamson pled guilty to drug charges
pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced
Williamson to 270 months’ imprisonment, and Williamson appealed.
His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but requesting this Court review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
colloquy and the sentence. Williamson did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, despite being notified of his right to do so.
The Government declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
Counsel contends the district court erred in accepting
Williamson’s guilty plea when it failed to advise Williamson of any
applicable forfeiture. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(J).
Williamson did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea; therefore, we review his challenge to the adequacy of
the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding “plain error
analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in
the Rule 11 context”). We find the alleged error did not affect
Williamson’s substantial rights and therefore find no plain error
in the court’s acceptance of Williamson’s guilty plea.
Counsel also contends the district court erred when it
failed to require the Government to move for a downward departure
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5K1.1
- 2 -
(2005). Williamson did not raise this issue in the district court,
so it is reviewed for plain error. The district court was not
obligated to require the Government to move for a downward
departure at the sentencing hearing. The Government remained the
appropriate party to assess whether Williamson cooperated
adequately to that point, and it was entitled to have that
assessment reviewed only for bad faith or unconstitutional motive,
neither of which Williamson alleged. See United States v. Snow,
234 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, we find no error.
Finally, counsel contends the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining a
sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are required to calculate
and consider the applicable guideline range as well as the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
- 3 -
Williamson’s sentence was both within the guidelines
range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment and below the statutory
maximum of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
(2000). The district court appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guidelines
range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors. We conclude the sentence
was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Williamson’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Williamson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Williamson 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 Williamson. 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 -