UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4684
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON ANTWAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00343-FL-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. Ayers II, AYERS & HAIDT, PA, New Bern, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Antwan Williams pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), possessing a firearm and
ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2012), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated
serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2012). Based on a total
offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of III,
Williams’ advisory Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months’
imprisonment. However, the district court departed downward and
imposed a 58-month sentence as to each count, to run
concurrently.
On appeal, Williams’ counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether Williams’ 58-month sentence is reasonable. Although
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Williams has not done so.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.
2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a
2
sentence, this court considers whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated
the Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We find that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court properly calculated Williams’ sentencing range
under the advisory Guidelines, considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, and imposed a sentence below the applicable sentencing
range. To the extent that Williams argues that the court should
have sentenced him to only 30 months’ imprisonment, this court
does not have jurisdiction to review “the extent of the district
court’s downward departure, except in instances in which the
departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation
of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the
Guidelines.” United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.
1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). Because there is nothing
in the record to suggest that Williams’ sentence was imposed in
violation of law or was based on an incorrect application of the
3
Guidelines, we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the
district court’s departure decision.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his
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 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