US v. Tuwana Williams, No. 08-5089 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TUWANA WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-7) Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessica Salvini, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tuwana Williams pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to utter counterfeit securities, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment. Williams appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district court erred in holding Williams responsible for the total loss and number of victims attributable to the entire conspiracy and whether the court erred in refusing to impose a below-Guidelines sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The Guidelines provide that a defendant is responsible for all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance U.S. of Sentencing . . . jointly Guidelines undertaken Manual § criminal activity. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2007). Williams admitted that she introduced other individuals to the counterfeit check-cashing scheme and that she was aware of the other participants. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in attributing to her the total loss and number of victims associated with the underlying conspiracy. See United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing standard). Next, counsel questions whether the court erred denying Williams request for a below-Guidelines sentence. 2 in We review a sentence for discretion standard. (2007). reasonableness, applying an abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural Id. After and substantive determining reasonableness whether the of district a sentence. court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, this court must then consider whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) presented selected by (2006) the parties, sentence. Gall, factors, and analyzed any sufficiently 552 U.S. at arguments explained 49-50; see the United States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). the substantive reasonableness of the Finally, we review sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). of correctness to Guidelines range. Here, a This court applies a presumption sentence within the properly-calculated Rita, 551 U.S. at 346-47. the district court correctly calculated Williams Guidelines range and, after hearing her arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, sentence of fifteen months. imposed a within-Guidelines We find that the district court s explanation was sufficient to show that the court conducted the 3 sort of individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall and Carter. presumption sentence. Moreover, of Williams reasonableness Therefore, we has failed accorded find that her to rebut the within-Guidelines Williams sentence is reasonable. Williams has also filed a supplemental pro se brief in which she asks this court to grant a sentence reduction and allow her to complete the remainder of her sentence on house arrest. filing However, Williams may only seek this relief by first in the district court a motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(3) (2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
