USA v. Sherman Edward Williams, No. 14-10977 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10977 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00011-RLV-WEJ-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHERMAN EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (September 17, 2014) Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Sherman Edward Williams appeals his sentence of imprisonment of 192 months after being convicted of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Williams s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court, contrary to Williams s contention, did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. The district court imposed Williams s sentence only after it had heard both Williams and the government make their respective arguments about what sentence would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And the record establishes that the district court considered the seriousness of the offense, the history of the defendant, and the guidelines range, and then determined that a sentence at the upper end of the range was adequate punishment. The district court committed no abuse of discretion by placing greater emphasis on the nature of the offense than on Williams s rehabilitative efforts and criminal history. 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.
