US v. Michael William, No. 10-4288 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:99-cr-00017-WO-1) Submitted: September 22, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following Michael Williams twenty-one months a hearing, supervised in the district release prison. and Williams court revoked sentenced now him appeals. to His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm. At the revocation hearing, Williams admitted violating a condition of release by using controlled substances on several occasions. There were no objections to the probation officer s determination that Williams, who was in criminal history category VI, had committed a Grade B release violation and that his advisory months in Williams, Guidelines prison. who The explained range was court his twenty-one heard reasons from for to twenty-seven counsel relapsing and from into drug abuse. We review the district court s supervised release for abuse of discretion. decision to revoke United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999). In light of Williams admission at the hearing, we conclude that revocation of release was not an abuse of discretion. 2 In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the sentence is excessive consider abuse. and that Williams the district explanation of court his did relapse not properly into substance We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir 2006). of the record reveals that the statutory maximum of five years. (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). reasonable: considered in the v. Here, our review falls within the See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) Further, the sentence is procedurally sentencing both sentence States Chapter Williams, 7 policy the district statements and court the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors that it is permitted to consider. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, for the court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. id. at 440. In contention, the sentencing into this court regard, clearly and took consideration. contrary to Williams The court See Williams statement expressed at its appreciation for Williams candor and stated that such candor and Williams support system were the reasons it was not imposing a longer sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 3 appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 of the motion was served on his client. 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 4
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.
