US v. Williams, No. 06-5004 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 4, 2008.
Download PDF
Vacated by Supreme Court, March 24, 2008 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN CARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 See United States v. Williams, No. 03-4418, 2005 WL 2464343 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished) (affirming conviction but vacating and remanding sentence).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. court erred presumption by of giving a sentence reasonableness and Williams claims the within the defaulting guidelines to a a guidelines sentence without giving full consideration to the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) sentencing factors. claims the court gave undue weight determining his guidelines sentence. to acquitted He also conduct in 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. sentence to determine This court reviews a post-Booker whether it prescribed range and reasonable. within the proper advisory is within the Id. at 547. Guidelines range is statutorily [A] sentence 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. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). reasonableness review, this court reviews quotation marks When conducting a 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 -
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.
