US v. Kevin Williams, No. 23-4111 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN WAYNE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00014-RJC-DSC-1) Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023 Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Richard E. Beam, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BEAM, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Wayne Williams appeals the 96-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). 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’ sentence is reasonable. Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Williams has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief and has not invoked the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm. We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First, we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [we] . . . then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the 2 sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016). We conclude that Williams’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and adequately explained why it imposed Williams’ sentence. Further, the court did not err in considering Williams’ prior convictions that did not factor into the computation of his criminal history category. Finally, we conclude that Williams has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines-range sentence. We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the 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 contentions are adequately presented in the 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.
