UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LOUIS WILLIAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00100-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Steven R. Ruby, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Louis Williams appeals the eighteen-month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He
contends that the district court erred in finding that he acted
in a threatening manner toward the director of the halfway house
in which he was required to reside as a condition of his
supervised release and was therefore dismissed from the halfway
house. We discern no clear error in this finding and also
conclude that this finding did not affect the revocation
determination or the sentence imposed upon revocation, and
therefore affirm.
Williams admitted to the alleged violations for using
marijuana and Percocet, and failing to attend scheduled
counseling. He denied the allegation that he was dismissed from
the halfway house for acting in a threatening manner. The
district court heard evidence from the director of the halfway
house that, during a random search of the men’s dormitory, the
director stopped and pat-searched Williams. He had
approximately $200 in cash, a number of bus tokens, receipts and
other items in his pockets. The director had Williams place the
contents of his pockets onto a mattress in front of him.
Williams was upset and agitated, but the director testified that
this was Williams’ normal demeanor toward her. The director
testified that Williams then positioned himself between the two
2
bunks, blocking the director’s exit. She had to twice order him
to step back and allow her to move. He continued to be
disrespectful toward her, seemingly intent on instigating the
other residents. The director testified that she did not feel
safe.
Williams testified that he did not threaten the
director, but that he thought she had taken some of his
possessions and placed them in her own pocket. He testified
that he used his normal voice and demeanor, which, because of
his size, could be intimidating, but that he would never
threaten a woman.
After hearing the evidence, the district court found
that Williams was discharged from the halfway house for “acting
in a threatening manner” toward the director. This factual
finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Garnett,
243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001) (reviewing factual findings
during supervised release proceedings for clear error).
Moreover, we conclude that this factual finding did
not affect the district court’s decision to revoke Williams’
supervised release, nor did it affect the term of imprisonment
imposed. Revocation was mandatory based on Williams’ admitted
drug related violations. The advisory guideline range based on
those violations was twenty-one to twenty-seven months. After
discussion with Williams concerning his adjustment on supervised
3
release and considering Williams’ history and need for
treatment, the district court sentenced him to eighteen months’
imprisonment to be followed by forty and one-half months of
supervised release. In light of the downward variance imposed
by the district court, we conclude that the finding that
Williams acted in a threatening manner toward the director of
the halfway house did not affect his sentence. Accordingly, we
affirm Williams’ sentence imposed upon revocation of his
supervised release. 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