UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TUWANA WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-7)
Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessica Salvini, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tuwana Williams pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to utter counterfeit securities, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and was
sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment. Williams appeals.
Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district
court erred in holding Williams responsible for the total loss
and number of victims attributable to the entire conspiracy and
whether the court erred in refusing to impose a below-Guidelines
sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The Guidelines provide that a defendant is responsible
for “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in
furtherance of . . . jointly undertaken criminal activity.”
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2007).
Williams admitted that she introduced other individuals to the
counterfeit check-cashing scheme and that she was aware of the
other participants. Accordingly, the district court did not
clearly err in attributing to her the total loss and number of
victims associated with the underlying conspiracy. See United
States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing
standard).
Next, counsel questions whether the court erred in
denying Williams’ request for a below-Guidelines sentence. We
2
review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46
(2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id. After determining whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, this court
must then consider whether the district court considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see United
States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, we review
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). This court applies a presumption
of correctness to a sentence within the properly-calculated
Guidelines range. Rita, 551 U.S. at 346-47.
Here, the district court correctly calculated
Williams’ Guidelines range and, after hearing her arguments for
a below-Guidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines
sentence of fifteen months. We find that the district court’s
explanation was sufficient to show that the court conducted the
3
sort of individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall
and Carter. Moreover, Williams has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness accorded her within-Guidelines
sentence. Therefore, we find that Williams’ sentence is
reasonable.
Williams has also filed a supplemental pro se brief in
which she asks this court to grant a sentence reduction and
allow her to complete the remainder of her sentence on house
arrest. However, Williams may only seek this relief by first
filing in the district court a motion for modification of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(3) (2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing,
of the 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 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 the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
4
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5