US v. Eugene Williams, No. 16-4137 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4137 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00049-BO-1) Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Research & Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Williams pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court sentenced Williams to 36 months of imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release for the drug offense, plus the months statutory of mandatory appeals. imprisonment for minimum the consecutive firearm offense, term and of he 60 now For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Williams first argues that the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by incorrectly informing him of the possible term of supervised release for the drug offense and failing to explain the nature of supervised release. “Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various guilty.” 2016). rights the defendant is relinquishing by pleading United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. The court also must determine that the plea is voluntary and that a factual basis exists for the plea. Id. While we generally review the acceptance of a guilty plea for harmless error, where “a defendant fails to move in the district court to 2 withdraw his or her guilty plea, any error hearing is reviewed only for plain error.” in the Rule 11 Id. To demonstrate plain error, Williams must show (1) error, (2) that rights. 2002). was plain, and United States v. Moreover, we (3) that affected his substantial Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. will not exercise our discretion to recognize the error unless “the ‘error seriously affects the fairness, integrity[,] proceedings.’” or public reputation of the judicial Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that Williams has failed to demonstrate plain error. Williams adequately also explain argues its that the imposition district of a court failed to 10-year term of supervised release for the drug offense where the Guidelines suggested a 3-year term for that count. We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir. 2009). examine the sentence for United States v. In so doing, we first “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based on 3 § 3553(a) clearly [(2012)] erroneous factors, facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence”. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. We then “‘consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). In sentencing a defendant, a district court must conduct an individualized assessment of the particular facts of every sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or within the Guidelines range. 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d Here, as Williams did not request a sentence other than that imposed or outside of the Guidelines range, we review this issue for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)(“By drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its claim.”). In the sentencing context, an error affects a defendant’s substantial sentence rights imposed if “was otherwise be subject”. the defendant longer than demonstrates that to which that he the would United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005) 4 (sentencing error affects substantial rights if sentence longer than defendant would otherwise have received). conclude that Williams has failed to is Here, we demonstrate that the court’s failure to conduct an individualized assessment resulted in a term of supervised release longer than that to which he would otherwise have been subject. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Williams’ supplemental brief. facts and materials legal before motion for leave to file a pro se We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the 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.
