United States v. John Williams

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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