UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN SAMUEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00284-JAB-3)
Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Charles
Cochran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Samuel Williams appeals the 198-month sentence
imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951(a), 2 (2012), and carrying and using, by discharging, a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2012). Williams’
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious
grounds for appeal but raising Williams’ claim that the district
court improperly applied the enhancement in U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3C1.2 (2013). Williams was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. We affirm.
Williams argues that the district court erred by
imposing a two-level enhancement under USSG § 3C1.2 for reckless
endangerment during flight. Applying the relevant legal
principles to the evidence and testimony adduced at the
sentencing hearing leaves us without doubt that the district
court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement in this
case. See United States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254-55 (4th
Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review and discussing § 3C1.2
enhancement). We therefore conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in sentencing Williams. See Gall v.
2
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate
review of sentences).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. 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,
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 this Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3