UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00049-BO-1)
Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C.
Leisten, Research & Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Williams pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012),
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The
district court sentenced Williams to 36 months of imprisonment
followed by 10 years of supervised release for the drug offense,
plus the statutory mandatory minimum consecutive term of 60
months of imprisonment for the firearm offense, and he now
appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Williams first argues that the district court failed to
comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by incorrectly informing him of
the possible term of supervised release for the drug offense and
failing to explain the nature of supervised release. “Before
accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with
the defendant, must ensure that the defendant understands the
nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the
various rights the defendant is relinquishing by pleading
guilty.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.
2016). The court also must determine that the plea is voluntary
and that a factual basis exists for the plea. Id. While we
generally review the acceptance of a guilty plea for harmless
error, where “a defendant fails to move in the district court to
2
withdraw his or her guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11
hearing is reviewed only for plain error.” Id.
To demonstrate plain error, Williams must show (1) error,
(2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir.
2002). Moreover, we will not exercise our discretion to
recognize the error unless “the ‘error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of the judicial
proceedings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
the relevant legal authorities and conclude that Williams has
failed to demonstrate plain error.
Williams also argues that the district court failed to
adequately explain its imposition of a 10-year term of
supervised release for the drug offense where the Guidelines
suggested a 3-year term for that count. We review a sentence
for abuse of discretion, determining whether the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. United States v.
Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first
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
3
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence”. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We then “‘consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United
States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
In sentencing a defendant, a district court must conduct an
individualized assessment of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, as Williams did not request a
sentence other than that imposed or outside of the Guidelines
range, we review this issue for plain error. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)(“By drawing
arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one
ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the
district court of its responsibility to render an individualized
explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its
claim.”).
In the sentencing context, an error affects a defendant’s
substantial rights if the defendant demonstrates that the
sentence imposed “was longer than that to which he would
otherwise be subject”. United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d
834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005)
4
(sentencing error affects substantial rights if sentence is
longer than defendant would otherwise have received). Here, we
conclude that Williams has failed to demonstrate that the
court’s failure to conduct an individualized assessment resulted
in a term of supervised release longer than that to which he
would otherwise have been subject.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court
and deny Williams’ motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief. 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
5