US v. Gregory William, No. 10-5030 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY LYNN WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-01201-GRA-1) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Lynn Williams appeals his forty-six-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of making a false statement to a bank in connection with a loan application, (West Supp. 2010). in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has examined the record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the Guidelines sentence. reasonableness of Williams Williams was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one. We within- review a district court s We affirm. sentence reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. for Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, requires 511 F.3d appellate 468, 473-74 (4th consideration Cir. of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. In determining procedural reasonableness, 2007). This review the procedural and Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. we consider 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. review the substantive reasonableness of Id. the Finally, we sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether 2 the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence § 3553(a). it chose satisfied the standards set forth in United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, the district court properly calculated Williams advisory Guidelines sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Williams within the Guidelines range to forty-six months in prison. explanation for Although its brief, rejection of the court counsel s provided request an for a downward variance and explained the reasons for the sentence imposed. We conclude that Williams sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move such this a petition court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Williams. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 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.
