US v. Matthew Williams, No. 13-4340 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4340 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00081-F-1) Submitted: March 21, 2014 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 13, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Hawes, THE EDMISTEN, WEBB & HAWES LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Williams appeals the forty-two-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to falsely make and counterfeit United States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), one count of counterfeiting United States currency and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 2 (2012), and one count of possession abetting, appeal, in of violation Williams counterfeit of argues 18 currency U.S.C. that the §§ 472, district and 2 aiding (2012). court erred and On in imposing an enhancement to his offense level for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 3C1.1 (2012), that the court erred in denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, and that the court rejection erred of in his failing to objections adequately to the explain presentence either its investigation report ( PSR ), or its determination of his sentence. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. This court substantive reviews a reasonableness sentence under an for procedural abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). evaluating procedural district court reasonableness, properly calculated we the and consider whether defendant s In the advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for 2 an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence supported by the record, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 49-51. Gall, 552 U.S. at If there are no significant procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court is not required to robotically tick through § 3553(a) s Johnson, 445 district court F.3d every 339, must subsection. 345 place (4th on Cir. the United record an v. However, 2006). States the individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal citation and footnote omitted)). sentence, When the district court imposes a within-Guidelines it may provide a less extensive, while still individualized explanation. United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, the sentencing court must facts apply the relevant presented, and it § 3553(a) must 3 factors state in to the open particular court the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)). We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Williams because it failed to adequately explain in open court its sentencing determination. Specifically, the district court failed to conduct an individualized application of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court s explanation of Williams s sentence which mentions, but never assesses any of the § 3553(a) factors does not provide a rationale tailored to the particular district case court s at hand[.] explanation Id. could at apply 330. to Rather, any the sentence, regardless of the offense, the defendant s personal background, or the defendant s criminal history. Id. at 329. We thus conclude that the district court procedurally erred in failing to provide an individually tailored explanation, and we cannot effectively review Williams s sentence. Accordingly, we vacate Williams s sentence and remand for resentencing. revisit its At resentencing, Guidelines the district calculations, which court were need not correct. However, the district court must entertain Williams s arguments for a sentence below the Guidelines range, apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the facts of Williams s case, and state with 4 particularity its reasoning behind its chosen dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the sentence. * facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED * Because we vacate and remand for procedural unreasonableness, we express no opinion regarding the substantive reasonableness of the forty-two-month sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) ( If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence[.] (quotation mark omitted)). 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.
