US v. William Blue, No. 13-4380 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4380 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM JUNIOR BLUE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00117-BR-1) Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 2, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Junior Blue pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking (2012), crime, and in was imprisonment. violation sentenced Blue appeals of to a his 18 U.S.C. total sentence, § 924(c)(1)(A) of 111 arguing months that the district court procedurally erred in determining that it lacked the authority to grant a downward variance. We affirm. We review a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45-46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th Cir. 2010). our review exercised of its the record discretion sentencing Blue. Contrary to Blue s assertion, confirms in that declining the to district vary court downward in We therefore conclude that the district court did not commit the procedural error alleged by Blue. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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.
