USA v. Albert Williams, No. 08-11813 (11th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-11813 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 9, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-14021-CR-KMM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERT WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (February 9, 2009) Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Albert Williams appeals his sentence of 240 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Williams argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. We review the reasonableness of a criminal sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 596 97 (2007). [T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a). United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). The weight allocated an individual factor in section 3553 is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the guideline range. Although Williams complains that the court failed to consider that he had assisted law enforcement and he had a history of substance abuse and various mental infirmities, the court stated that it had considered those facts. The court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a sentence of 240 months of imprisonment served the statutory purposes of deterrence and adequate punishment. See 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Williams s sentence is reasonable. Williams s sentence is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.