USA V. CHARLES WILLIAMS, No. 14-50363 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50363 D.C. No. 8:97-cr-00038-PA v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Charles Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Williams contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating argument and by improperly focusing on punishment and the seriousness of the conduct underlying the revocation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court responded sufficiently to Williams’s mitigating argument and did not base the sentence on any improper considerations. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). Williams also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Williams’s significant breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50363
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.
