Filed: Nov. 13, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: Vacated by Supreme Court, March 24, 2008 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:99-cr-00346-PJM) Submitted: October 22, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
Summary: Vacated by Supreme Court, March 24, 2008 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:99-cr-00346-PJM) Submitted: October 22, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge...
More
Vacated by Supreme Court, March 24, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:99-cr-00346-PJM)
Submitted: October 22, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bryan E.
Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Carnell Williams appeals the district court’s
sentence imposed after we remanded for resentencing consistent with
the rules announced in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220
(2005), and United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005).
See United States v. Williams, No. 03-4418,
2005 WL 2464343 (4th
Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished) (affirming conviction but vacating
and remanding sentence). At resentencing, the court imposed the
same sentence, 262 months’ imprisonment, or the bottom of the
sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment. Williams claims the
court erred by giving a sentence within the guidelines a
presumption of reasonableness and defaulting to a guidelines
sentence without giving full consideration to the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) sentencing factors. He also
claims the court gave undue weight to acquitted conduct in
determining his guidelines sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
After Booker, a sentencing court must calculate the
appropriate guideline range, consider that range in conjunction
with the factors set forth at § 3553(a), and impose sentence.
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47. This court reviews a post-Booker
sentence to determine whether it is “within the statutorily
prescribed range” and reasonable.
Id. at 547. “[A] sentence
within the proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
2006). “[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). When conducting a
reasonableness review, this court reviews “legal questions,
including the interpretation of the guidelines, de novo, while
factual findings are reviewed for clear error.” United States v.
Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). A factual or legal error can render a sentence
unreasonable.
Id.
We find the district court appropriately followed the
post-Booker sentencing procedure. It determined the guidelines
range of imprisonment and then considered the § 3553(a) factors.
We find Williams’ sentence reasonable. We further find the court
did not give undue weight to Williams’ acquitted conduct.
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -