UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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 
4

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) 
5

(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