US v. William Gardner, No. 12-5020 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-5020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM THOMAS GARDNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00031-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Rice, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Thomas Gardner pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). offender to imprisonment. a The court sentenced Gardner as a career below-Guidelines sentence of 120 months On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly calculated the criminal history score and whether the court properly sentenced Gardner as a career offender. Gardner was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We affirm. We review Gardner s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). transcript pursuant to standard. Gall v. United After reviewing the sentencing Anders, we conclude that sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Gardner s See id. at 49-51 (listing factors for court to consider when determining procedural reasonableness); United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, burden 379 measured of (4th showing against Cir. 2006) that the the [18 (holding sentence U.S.C.] 2 that is § 3553(a) defendant unreasonable [(2006)] bears when factors (internal quotation marks omitted)). the district court correctly Notably, we conclude that calculated Gardner s criminal history score, as the sentence for the prior robbery conviction he challenges on appeal was imposed within fifteen years of the commencement of Gardner s offense. Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(e)(1) (2011). See U.S. Sentencing We also conclude that, because Gardner had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, the district court properly classified him as a career offender. Id. § 4B1.1(a). 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 Gardner, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gardner requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gardner. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
