UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY TODD WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00018-WO-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: April 5, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Eric L.
Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Todd Williams pleaded guilty to receipt of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1)
(2012). The district court varied below the Guidelines range
and sentenced Williams to 121 months of imprisonment, and he now
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Williams challenges the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, arguing that the extent of the
departure was not sufficient to take into account Williams’
personal characteristics, the fact that the child pornography
Guidelines are based largely on Congressional direction to the
Sentencing Commission to raise offense levels rather than
empirical evidence, and the child pornography Guidelines’
failure to distinguish between defendants based on their
relative levels of culpability. We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see also United
States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir. 2016). In so
doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
2
sentence”. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. “Any sentence that
is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” White, 810 F.3d at 230 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
Williams has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
applied to his sentence. The district court properly calculated
the advisory Guidelines range, responded to each of the parties’
sentencing arguments, and thoroughly explained the sentence,
including the extent of the variance. Based on the factors
identified by the district court, the sentence is sufficient,
but not greater than necessary, to accomplish the goals of
§ 3553(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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