UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4842
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM MELVIN WILLIAMS, a/k/a Dick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00019-WLO)
Submitted: October 26, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, William Melvin Williams
pled guilty to one count of distributing cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007).
The district court imposed a 160-month variance sentence, twenty-
eight months below the advisory guideline range. Williams timely
appealed.
Williams’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the
reasonableness of Williams’ sentence. Counsel states, however,
that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Williams
filed pro se supplemental briefs asserting additional claims.
Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
district courts are no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005). However, in imposing a sentence post-Booker,
courts still must calculate the applicable guideline range after
making the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). It is the district court’s responsibility “to impose
a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the purposes of § 3553(a).” United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d
556, 561 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
- 2 -
omitted). If the appeals court concludes that the sentence
achieves this goal, the sentence may be affirmed as reasonable.
Id. To this end, the sentencing court should correctly determine
the advisory guideline range and decide whether a sentence within
the range serves the factors set out in § 3553(a). Id. at 560. If
not, the court should first determine whether a departure is
warranted. Id. If the court finds that the departure range is
still inadequate, the court may impose a variance sentence. Id. at
560-61. When reviewing a variance sentence, the appeals court
considers “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with
respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect
to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007)
(citations omitted).
Having thoroughly reviewed Williams’ sentence, we find
that the district court properly calculated Williams’ guideline
range and acted reasonably in imposing the downward variance
sentence. We also have thoroughly reviewed the issues raised in
Williams’ pro se supplemental briefs and find that they do not
warrant relief. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in
writing, of the 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
- 3 -
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 -