UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EZEKIEL ELIJAH WILLIAMS, a/k/a Kale,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00004-NKM-6)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 30, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Rena G. Berry, RENA G. BERRY, Salem, Virginia, for Appellant.
Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah Brigham, Third Year Law
Intern, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Ezekiel Elijah Williams was sentenced to thirty-seven
months of imprisonment for a Grade B violation of his supervised
release. We vacate the district court’s sentence and remand for
resentencing.
We conclude that the district court did not err in
declining to recalculate Williams’s criminal history category in
determining his sentencing range. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a) n.*, p.s. (revocation table) (“The
criminal history category is the category applicable at the time
the defendant originally was sentenced to a term of
supervision.”). Any challenge to the original calculation of
that category would be untimely. See United States v. Johnson,
138 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1998).
But, as the parties both agree, the sentencing range
itself was miscalculated. A Category IV offender who commits a
Grade B violation, as Williams did, is subject to a range of
twelve to eighteen months’ imprisonment. USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s.
Because sentencing under the wrong Guidelines range constitutes
reversible error, even under a “plainly unreasonable” standard,
we are constrained to vacate the sentence and remand for
resentencing. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40
(4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard of review).
2
Accordingly, although we affirm the revocation of
supervised release, we vacate Williams’s sentence and remand for
resentencing under the properly calculated Guidelines range.
Because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process, we deny Williams’s motion for oral argument.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
3