US v. Jason Williams, No. 13-4684 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON ANTWAN WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00343-FL-1) Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Ayers II, AYERS & HAIDT, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason Antwan Williams pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2012). Based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of III, Williams advisory imprisonment. imposed a Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months However, the district court departed downward and 58-month sentence as to each count, to run concurrently. On appeal, Williams counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Williams advised of his 58-month right to sentence file a is pro reasonable. se Although supplemental brief, Williams has not done so. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the procedural and Gall v. United States, 552 This review requires consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In determining the procedural 2 reasonableness of a sentence, properly this court calculated considers the whether defendant s the district Guidelines range, court treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. U.S. at 51. Gall, 552 A sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We find that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. district court properly calculated Williams sentencing The range under the advisory Guidelines, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence below the applicable sentencing range. To the extent that Williams argues that the court should have sentenced him to only 30 months imprisonment, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court s downward departure, except in instances in which the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or Guidelines. resulted from an incorrect application of the United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that Williams sentence was imposed in violation of law or was based on an incorrect application of the 3 Guidelines, we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court s departure decision. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and Accordingly, have we found affirm no the meritorious district issues court s for appeal. judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his 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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
