United States v. Karyea Williams

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4869

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KARYEA WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00816-TMC-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Karyea Williams appeals his conviction and the 262-month

sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea

to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and

possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). On

appeal, Williams’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that he found no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams’

sentence is reasonable. Williams was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.

In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the

district court did not commit any “significant procedural

error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the

sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once

we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed “must be sufficient,

but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of

sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). If the sentence imposed is

2
within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d

148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015). The presumption may be rebutted by a

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against

the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court

committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing

Williams’ sentence and, thus, did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing him to 262 months’ imprisonment. See United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)

(providing standard of review).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record and have found no meritorious issues for review. We

therefore 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

3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4