US v. David Williams, No. 12-4719 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4719 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Kristian Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00045-TDS-2) Submitted: April 9, 2013 Decided: April 12, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joan Brodish Binkley, Douglas Cannon, Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Earl Williams appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirteen months of imprisonment supervised release. and a twenty-three month term of Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Williams sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified filed of his right supplemental brief. We to do so, Williams has not a district court s a We affirm. ordinarily review judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). object to the district However, because Williams did not court s revocation release, we review for plain error. U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). of his supervised United States v. Olano, 507 To satisfy the plain error standard an appellant must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States 2009). v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. Even if Williams satisfies these requirements, correction of the error is appropriate only if we conclude that the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks 2 omitted). Here, Williams admitted conditions of his supervised release. to violating numerous Accordingly, the district court did not err in directing that Williams supervised release status be revoked. The Williams. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)-(g) (2006). district court also appropriately sentenced A district court has broad discretion when imposing sentence upon revoking a term of supervised release. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will affirm such a sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. will we then decide unreasonable . . . . Here, the Id. at 438. whether the Only if we so find, sentence is plainly Id. at 439. district court correctly calculated Williams advisory policy statement range and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors applicable to sentencing upon revocation within its of supervised statutory release. authority to The court sentence additional term of supervised release. was also Williams to well an 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Because the district court also clearly explained the basis for Williams sentence, we find no error in its imposition. 3 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation of Williams supervised release and his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Williams requests believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to 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 materials before this 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.
