UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TONY OBRIEN WILLIAMS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00107-H-1) 

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart 

Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara 

D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Obrien Williams pleaded guilty to interstate 

transportation for the purpose of prostitution, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2421 (2012), and use of a facility in interstate 

commerce with the intent to promote and facilitate a business 

enterprise involving prostitution offenses, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) (2012). The district court calculated 

Williams’ Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual (2015) at 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment, imposed an 

upward departure, and sentenced Williams to concurrent terms of 

84 months’ imprisonment. Williams now appeals and challenges 

the imposition of the upward departure.1 We affirm. 

The district court determined that an upward departure from 

the Guidelines range was reasonable and necessary in Williams’ 

case and imposed the departure in two stages. The court 

determined first that Williams’ criminal history Category of V

substantially underrepresented the seriousness of his criminal 

history and the likelihood he would commit other crimes and 

departed upward to a criminal history Category of VI. See USSG 

§ 4A1.3(a), p.s. Second, to account for offense conduct that 

 1 In his opening brief, Williams also argues that the 

district court plainly erred in ordering him to register as a 

sex offender as a condition of his supervised release. In his 

reply brief, however, Williams withdraws this challenge. 

We therefore address only Williams’ departure challenge. 
3

did not enter into the determination of the Williams’ Guidelines 

range—which included “physical injury” and “extreme conduct”—the 

district court found that an upward departure from a total 

offense level of 17 to 22 was warranted. See USSG §§ 5K2.2, 

5K2.8, p.s. The 84-month sentences the district court imposed 

fall at the low end of the resulting upward departure Guidelines 

range of 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment. Williams argues on 

appeal that the district court erred when it departed in part 

based on USSG § 5K2.2, p.s.,2 because the record lacks reliable 

evidence to support a finding that anyone suffered significant 

physical injury as a result of his criminal conduct. 

We review a district court’s sentence “for reasonableness 

‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,’” whether the 

sentence “is ‘inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

 2 This section of the Guidelines provides that: 

If significant physical injury resulted, the court may 

increase the sentence above the authorized guideline 

range. The extent of the increase ordinarily should 

depend on the extent of the injury, the degree to 

which it may prove permanent, and the extent to which 

the injury was intended or knowingly risked. When the 

victim suffers a major, permanent disability and when 

such injury was intentionally inflicted, a substantial 

departure may be appropriate. If the injury is less 

serious or if the defendant (though criminally 

negligent) did not knowingly create the risk of harm, 

a less substantial departure would be indicated. 

In general, the same considerations apply as in [USSG] 

§ 5K2.1. 

USSG § 5K2.2, p.s.
4

Guidelines range.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 

(4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 

(2007)), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 16–5808, 2016 WL 

4575411 (U.S. Oct. 11, 2016). In assessing the district court’s 

application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review that court’s 

factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de 

novo. United States v. Dodd, 770 F.3d 306, 309 (4th Cir. 2014). 

“When, [however], a district court offers two or more 

independent rationales for its deviation, an appellate court 

cannot hold the sentence unreasonable if the appellate court 

finds fault with just one of these rationales.” United 

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 165 (4th Cir. 2008). 

In light of these principles and after review of the record 

and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Williams fails to 

establish reversible error by the district court. Assuming 

without deciding that the district court erroneously departed 

from the Guidelines range under USSG § 5K2.2, p.s., the court 

additionally based the second stage of its departure decision on 

extreme conduct that did not enter into the determination of 

Williams’ Guidelines range. On appeal, Williams does not raise 

any challenge to this additional basis underlying the second 

stage of the upward departure decision. By failing to present 

any challenge in this regard, Williams has waived review of this 

issue. See Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 216-17 (4th Cir. 
5

2009). He thus fails to establish reversible error by the 

district court in the second stage of its departure decision. 

As the second stage of the departure decision is the only stage 

Williams challenges, we affirm the criminal judgment. 

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