Filed: Jan. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 06-30355 Clerk Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CORNELL WILLIAMS, also known as Carnell Williams, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:05-CR-97-1 - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cornell Williams ap
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 06-30355 Clerk Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CORNELL WILLIAMS, also known as Carnell Williams, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:05-CR-97-1 - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cornell Williams app..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-30355 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CORNELL WILLIAMS, also known as Carnell Williams,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:05-CR-97-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cornell Williams appeals his sentence for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2). He contends that his non-guideline sentence is un-
reasonable because it is based on improper factors. Specifically,
he argues that the upward deviation amounts to a disagreement with
Sentencing Commission policy because it assigns different weight to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-30355
-2-
factors incorporated in the guidelines from that prescribed by the
Commission.
The record does not reflect that the district court disagreed
with Sentencing Commission policy as to the weight to be afforded
prior convictions or as to whether evasive conduct justifies an
obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The court considered the ap-
plicable guideline range and decided to deviate upwardly from that
range based on its consideration of individualized and proper
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances
of the instant offense and Williams’s history and characteristics.
Therefore, the non-guideline sentence is not unreasonable.
See United States v. Tzep-Mejia,
461 F.3d 522, 528 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.