UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVIN MAURICE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Gunshine,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00113-BO-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 14, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel J. Randall, IV, THE RANDALL LAW FIRM, P.C., Leland, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Timothy Severo, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Devin Maurice Williams pled guilty to one 

count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924 (2006), and was 

sentenced to a seventy month term of imprisonment. He now 

challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. Specifically, 

Williams argues that the district court erred by imposing a 

four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6) (2009), by failing to adequately explain 

the basis for the sentence, and by failing to grant his motion 

for a sentencing variance. For the reasons discussed below, we 

affirm.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. 

In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers 

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s 

advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Next, we 

review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “‘taking 

into account the totality of the circumstances, including the 

extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United 
3

States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), petition for cert. filed

First, Williams maintains the district court 

erroneously calculated his Guidelines sentencing range by 

applying a four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). To 

apply the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6), the Government must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence facts that establish 

that the defendant used a firearm and that its use was in 

connection with another felony offense. United States v. 

Garnett, 243 F.3d 824, 828-29 (4th Cir. 2001). A district 

court’s finding that sufficient facts exist to support the 

enhancement is reviewed for clear error. Id. Under the clear 

error standard of review, this court will reverse only if it is 

“left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been committed.” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 

(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

, __ U.S.L.W. __ 

(U.S. July 16, 2010) (No. 09-4007). 

Williams does not dispute his use of a firearm, but 

claims the district court erred in assigning the four-level 

enhancement because he presented evidence sufficient to support 

his claim that he acted in self-defense. The record shows, 

however, that Williams, who was in a car at the time of the 

shooting, had a reasonable alternative to engaging in criminal 

conduct and recklessly placed himself in danger when he exited 
4

his vehicle and walked towards the other vehicle. See United 

States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 2009) (listing the 

elements of the justification defense). Thus, Williams cannot 

establish the district court’s rejection of his justification 

argument was clearly erroneous.

Next, Williams argues the district court failed to 

adequately explain the basis for his sentence and imposed a 

substantively unreasonable sentence. We have thoroughly 

reviewed the sentencing transcript in this case, and determine 

the district court’s explanation, though brief, was legally 

sufficient. The record makes clear that the court considered 

the supporting evidence and was fully aware of Williams’ 

individual situation. 

Finally, Williams challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence and the district court’s refusal 

to grant his motion for a downward variance in light of his 

self-defense argument. As discussed above, Williams was unable 

to establish a valid justification defense on this record; 

accordingly, the district court did not err by denying his 

motion. Furthermore, a within Guidelines sentence is presumed 

reasonable on appeal. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 

(4th Cir. 2008). This 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 
5

375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Williams cannot rebut the presumption on this record. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED