Court Opinion

ID: 9831307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:27.303936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:00.747815
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4111

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KEVIN WAYNE WILLIAMS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00014-RJC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Richard E. Beam, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BEAM, Gastonia,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kevin Wayne Williams appeals the 96-month sentence imposed after he pleaded

        guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute

        methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Williams’ counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

        no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams’ sentence is

        reasonable. Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,

        Williams has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief and has

        not invoked the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First,

        we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing

        to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

        mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based

        on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United

        States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552

        U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [we] . . . then consider the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the

        circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting

        Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is

        presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4111         Doc: 28      Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.

        White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016).

               We conclude that Williams’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and adequately explained why

        it imposed Williams’ sentence. Further, the court did not err in considering Williams’ prior

        convictions that did not factor into the computation of his criminal history category.

        Finally, we conclude that Williams has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness

        afforded his within-Guidelines-range sentence.

               We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have found no

        meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This

        court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a petition be filed,

        but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

        court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

        thereof was served on Williams.

               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

                                                     3