UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4340
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00081-F-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Hawes, THE EDMISTEN, WEBB & HAWES LAW FIRM, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Williams appeals the forty-two-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one
count of conspiracy to falsely make and counterfeit United
States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), one
count of counterfeiting United States currency and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 2 (2012), and one
count of possession of counterfeit currency and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472, 2 (2012). On
appeal, Williams argues that the district court erred in
imposing an enhancement to his offense level for obstruction of
justice pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 3C1.1 (2012), that the court erred in denying him a reduction
in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, and that
the court erred in failing to adequately explain either its
rejection of his objections to the presentence investigation
report (“PSR”), or its determination of his sentence. We vacate
and remand for further proceedings.
This court reviews a sentence for procedural and
substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In
evaluating procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
2
an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, selected a sentence supported by the record, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49-51. If there are no significant procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances. United States
v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court is not required to “robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the
district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized
assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.
This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal citation and footnote
omitted)). When the district court imposes a within-Guidelines
sentence, “it may provide a less extensive, while still
individualized explanation.” United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d
625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, the sentencing court
must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular
facts presented, and it must “state in open court” the
3
particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Carter,
564 F.3d at 328 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)).
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion
in sentencing Williams because it failed to adequately explain
in open court its sentencing determination. Specifically, the
district court failed to conduct an individualized application
of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court’s explanation of
Williams’s sentence—which mentions, but never assesses any of
the § 3553(a) factors—does not “provide a rationale tailored to
the particular case at hand[.]” Id. at 330. Rather, the
district court’s explanation “could apply to any sentence,
regardless of the offense, the defendant’s personal background,
or the defendant’s criminal history.” Id. at 329. We thus
conclude that the district court procedurally erred in failing
to provide an individually tailored explanation, and we cannot
effectively review Williams’s sentence.
Accordingly, we vacate Williams’s sentence and remand for
resentencing. At resentencing, the district court need not
revisit its Guidelines calculations, which were correct.
However, the district court must entertain Williams’s arguments
for a sentence below the Guidelines range, apply the relevant §
3553(a) factors to the facts of Williams’s case, and state with
4
particularity its reasoning behind its chosen sentence. * We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
Because we vacate and remand for procedural
unreasonableness, we express no opinion regarding the
substantive reasonableness of the forty-two-month sentence. See
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (“If,
and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence[.]”
(quotation mark omitted)).
5