Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-17
Citations: 579 F. App'x 954
Docket Number: No. 14-10977
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10977
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2014.
Jill E. Steinberg, Lawrence R. Sommer-feld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cathy Morris Alterman, Alterman & Associates, PC, Marietta, GA, Sherman Edward Williams, FCI Yazoo City Low-Inmate Legal Mail, Yazoo City, MS, Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Edward Williams appeals his sentence of imprisonment of 192 months after being convicted of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Williams's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court, contrary to Williams's contention, did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. The district court imposed Williams's sentence only after it had heard both Williams and the government make their respective arguments about what sentence would be "sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And the record establishes that the district court considered the seriousness of the offense, the history of the defendant, and the guidelines range, and then determined that a sentence at the upper end of the range was adequate punishment. The district court committed no abuse of discretion by placing greater emphasis on the nature of the offense than on Williams's rehabilitative efforts and criminal history.
AFFIRMED.
Co | KEY NUMBER SYSTEM >