US v. Dequantey Williams, No. 13-4265 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEQUANTEY MAURICE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00110-CCE-1) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dequantey Maurice Williams pled guilty to possession of a firearm offense. court by a person previously convicted of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012). determined that Williams qualified as a felony The district an armed career criminal subject to a 180-month minimum sentence. The court departed 153-months downward imprisonment. and sentenced Williams to He appeals, challenging the determination that he qualified as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirm. Section 924(e) provides for a 180-month minimum sentence upon violation of § 922(g) by a person who has three or more prior felony convictions for either violent felonies or serious drug trafficking offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Williams concedes that he had two qualifying predicate offenses. At issue in this appeal is whether Williams 2005 conviction of North Carolina common law robbery is a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, thus qualifying as a felony offense and the third predicate conviction required for Williams to be sentenced as an armed career criminal. In United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), we punishable held by that more a North than Carolina one year of conviction is imprisonment a if crime the particular defendant is eligible for a sentence of more than one 2 year, taking into account his criminal history and the nature of his offense. common law sentenced Id. at 247 & n.9. robbery within offense the does Williams contends that the qualify range mitigated not under because North he was Carolina s Structured Sentencing Act, to 8 to 10 months imprisonment. This court has held that, although a defendant is sentenced within the mitigated range, the maximum sentence the defendant could receive is determined by the presumptive range under the North Carolina Structured Sentencing Act. See United States v. Kerr, 737 F.3d 33, 38-39 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1773 (2014); see also North Carolina v. Bivens, 573 S.E.2d 259, 261 62 (N.C. App. 2002) (providing that, even if judge finds that mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors, the judge may sentence Because the the defendant maximum sentence within in the the presumptive presumptive range). range for Williams common law robbery offense exceeded 12 months, this conviction qualified as a felony offense, and thus his armed career criminal enhancement was proper. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we affirm argument adequately Williams because presented in the the sentence. facts We and legal 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.
