US v. Jimmy Williams, No. 12-4921 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4921 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jerry Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jermaine Thomas Williamson, a/k/a James Thomas Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Jermaine Williamson, a/k/a Kenneth Goss, a/k/a Jerminie Thomas Williamson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00183-MOC-DCK-1) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Williams upon appeals sentence imposed release. contends revoking his supervised continue on supervision outside of prison. that release and Williams of the his twenty-four-month Finding no error, we affirm. Williams revocation the district rather pursue term than mental failed to of supervised court erred allowing health raise him in to treatment this argument before the district court, therefore we decline to consider it on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) ( [I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered . . . [unless] refusal to consider the newly-raised issue would be plain error or would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. ). Moreover, we conclude that Williams twenty-four-month revocation sentence is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In determining the sentence to impose upon revocation of Williams supervised release, the district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Sentencing Guidelines manual, the statutory requirements, and the relevant factors applicable to revocation ยงยง 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006). sentences under 18 U.S.C. The court also considered Williams 2 argument for a sentence at the low end of the range and the government s argument for a sentence at the higher end. Williams extensive deterrence, the criminal court history imposed a and the revocation Noting need sentence in for the middle of the relevant range, to be followed by three years of supervised release. This plainly twenty-four-month unreasonable. See revocation Crudup, 461 sentence is F.3d 437-39. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. at not 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 3
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.
