UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LOUIS WILLIAMS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00100-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth 

Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Steven R. Ruby, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Louis Williams appeals the eighteen-month 

sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He 

contends that the district court erred in finding that he acted 

in a threatening manner toward the director of the halfway house 

in which he was required to reside as a condition of his 

supervised release and was therefore dismissed from the halfway 

house. We discern no clear error in this finding and also 

conclude that this finding did not affect the revocation 

determination or the sentence imposed upon revocation, and 

therefore affirm.

Williams admitted to the alleged violations for using

marijuana and Percocet, and failing to attend scheduled 

counseling. He denied the allegation that he was dismissed from 

the halfway house for acting in a threatening manner. The 

district court heard evidence from the director of the halfway 

house that, during a random search of the men’s dormitory, the 

director stopped and pat-searched Williams. He had 

approximately $200 in cash, a number of bus tokens, receipts and 

other items in his pockets. The director had Williams place the 

contents of his pockets onto a mattress in front of him. 

Williams was upset and agitated, but the director testified that 

this was Williams’ normal demeanor toward her. The director 

testified that Williams then positioned himself between the two 
3

bunks, blocking the director’s exit. She had to twice order him 

to step back and allow her to move. He continued to be 

disrespectful toward her, seemingly intent on instigating the 

other residents. The director testified that she did not feel 

safe.

Williams testified that he did not threaten the 

director, but that he thought she had taken some of his 

possessions and placed them in her own pocket. He testified 

that he used his normal voice and demeanor, which, because of 

his size, could be intimidating, but that he would never 

threaten a woman. 

After hearing the evidence, the district court found 

that Williams was discharged from the halfway house for “acting 

in a threatening manner” toward the director. This factual 

finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Garnett, 

243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001) (reviewing factual findings 

during supervised release proceedings for clear error).

Moreover, we conclude that this factual finding did 

not affect the district court’s decision to revoke Williams’ 

supervised release, nor did it affect the term of imprisonment 

imposed. Revocation was mandatory based on Williams’ admitted 

drug related violations. The advisory guideline range based on 

those violations was twenty-one to twenty-seven months. After 

discussion with Williams concerning his adjustment on supervised 
4

release and considering Williams’ history and need for 

treatment, the district court sentenced him to eighteen months’ 

imprisonment to be followed by forty and one-half months of 

supervised release. In light of the downward variance imposed 

by the district court, we conclude that the finding that 

Williams acted in a threatening manner toward the director of 

the halfway house did not affect his sentence. Accordingly, we 

affirm Williams’ sentence imposed upon revocation of his 

supervised release. 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