US v. Devin William, No. 10-4403 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4403 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEVIN MAURICE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Gunshine, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00113-BO-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 14, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel J. Randall, IV, THE RANDALL LAW FIRM, P.C., Leland, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Severo, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellant Devin Maurice Williams pled guilty to one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924 (2006), and was sentenced to a seventy month term of imprisonment. challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. Williams argues that the district court erred He now Specifically, by imposing a four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2009), by failing to adequately explain the basis for the sentence, and by failing to grant his motion for a sentencing variance. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Next, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 2 Guidelines range. United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 16, 2010) (No. 09-4007). First, erroneously Williams calculated his maintains the Guidelines district sentencing court range by applying a four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6). To apply the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6), the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence facts that establish that the defendant connection Garnett, court s with 243 another F.3d finding used 824, that a firearm felony 828-29 and that offense. (4th sufficient Cir. facts use 2001). Id. to was in States United exist enhancement is reviewed for clear error. its v. A district support the Under the clear error standard of review, this court will reverse only if it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Williams does not dispute his use of a firearm, but claims the district court erred in assigning the four-level enhancement because he presented evidence sufficient to support his claim that he acted in self-defense. The record shows, however, that Williams, who was in a car at the time of the shooting, had a reasonable alternative to engaging in criminal conduct and recklessly placed himself in danger when he exited 3 his vehicle and walked towards the other vehicle. See United States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 2009) (listing the elements of the justification defense). Thus, Williams cannot establish the district court s rejection of his justification argument was clearly erroneous. Next, adequately Williams explain substantively the argues basis unreasonable the for district his court sentence sentence. We and have failed to imposed a thoroughly reviewed the sentencing transcript in this case, and determine the district sufficient. the court s explanation, though brief, was legally The record makes clear that the court considered supporting evidence and was fully aware of Williams individual situation. Finally, Williams challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the district court s refusal to grant his motion for a downward variance in light of his self-defense argument. As discussed above, Williams was unable to justification establish accordingly, motion. a the valid district court did defense not err on by this record; denying his Furthermore, a within Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal. (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 This presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 4 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Williams cannot rebut the presumption on this record. For the foregoing court s judgment. facts and materials legal before reasons, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
