UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-
cr-00591-AMD-1)
Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, David Williams was convicted
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and sentenced to 262 months in
prison. Williams appeals, contending that his sentence is
procedurally unreasonable because the district court
miscalculated his guidelines range and treated the guidelines as
mandatory. Finding his claims meritless, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In this case, Williams
challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.
In determining whether a sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range. Id. at
596-97. We then determine whether the district court failed to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any
arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on
“clearly erroneous facts,” or failed to sufficiently explain the
selected sentence. Id. at 597.
Williams asserts that the district court miscalculated
his guidelines range because it incorrectly believed that it
2
could impose an obstruction of justice enhancement. However,
the court did not apply such an enhancement. Therefore,
Williams is not entitled to relief on this claim.
Williams also argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court treated the guidelines
as mandatory by imposing a within-guidelines sentence after
repeated remarks that the guidelines range was too long. This
claim is belied by the record, which shows that the court also
noted that Williams had earned that guidelines range and that a
sentence within that range was necessary to satisfy the goals of
sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
3