Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0909-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Wesley WILLIAMS, Appellant.
    No. 08-2637.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 15, 2009.
    Filed: Dec. 17, 2009.
    Troy K. Stabenow, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Jefferson City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
    Charles Wesley Williams, Bowling Green, MO, pro se.
    Jim Y. Lynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Wesley Williams (Williams) pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court imposed a sentence of 92 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Williams’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the district court’s determination that a previous burglary conviction should be considered a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2(a)(2). Williams has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he argues the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

We hold the district court properly determined Williams’s Missouri conviction for second-degree burglary of an unoccupied commercial building was a “crime of violence” within the meaning of section 4B1.2(a)(2). See United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir.2006). Further, the district court’s explanation for denying Williams a variance below the Guidelines range shows the court correctly treated the Guidelines as advisory. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 245-46, 125 S.Ct. 738 (holding the Sixth Amendment problem resulting from the mandatory nature of the Guidelines is remedied by making the Guidelines advisory).

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence, see United, States v. Feem-ster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing the factors that constitute an abuse of discretion), and no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, see Benson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. 
      
      . The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.