US v. Zavier Williams, No. 13-4004 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ZAVIER LAVAR WILLIAMS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:12-cr-00197-CMC-1) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zavier Lavar Williams pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute quantities of cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)-(D), 846 (2006), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). and sentenced to 262 He was designated a career offender months imprisonment, bottom of his advisory Guidelines range. which was at the On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review Williams convictions and the reasonableness of the sentence. In his pro se supplemental filing, Williams asks that we review whether he is entitled to relief based on the Supreme Court s recent decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Because Williams did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d To prevail under this standard, Williams must establish that an error occurred, that this error was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. 2 United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 43 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the record establishes that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Williams plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact. We applying States, We therefore affirm Williams convictions. review an abuse 552 U.S. consideration Williams of 38, of sentence discretion 46, both 51 the district court Gall This procedural reasonableness of the sentence. whether reasonableness, standard. (2007). the for review and Id. at 51. properly v. United requires substantive We first assess calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 76 (4th Cir. 2010). substantive totality of If there is no procedural error, we review the reasonableness the of circumstances the to sentence, see examin[ing] whether the the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the defendant s properly calculated Guidelines range, reasonableness. we apply a presumption of substantive United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 3 (4th Cir. 2010); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence reasonable. We is discern both no procedurally error in the and substantively district court s computation of Williams Guidelines range, including the career offender designation, the opportunities it provided Williams and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the relevant § 3553(a) factors. In addition to noting its overall consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, the district court opined that the 262-month sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of Williams crimes; Williams recidivism and demonstrated lack of respect for the law; and the need to impose a just punishment that would protect the public and deter future criminality. Finally, we have found no basis in the record to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded this within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We note that Williams claim for relief under Alleyne fails, given that the mandatory minimum five-year consecutive term of imprisonment applicable to the § 924(c) charge was not increased based on aggravating factors not charged in the indictment. 4 Cf. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2155-56, 2160-63. the judgment of the district court. We therefore affirm 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 such a petition would be frivolous, then 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. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
