United States of America v. Larry Sinclair Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6836
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:92-cr-00083-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 2, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Owings, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sinclair Williams sought, under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010), to reduce the consecutive
sentences imposed for his multiple convictions for use and carry
of firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 2010). The district court
denied relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
To the extent Williams seeks relief under
§ 3582(c)(2), his claim fails because he does not rely on a
sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the
Sentencing Commission. To the extent Williams seeks relief
under § 3582(c)(1)(B), his claim fails on the merits. We have
previously held that convictions for separate crimes of violence
may lead to multiple sentences under § 924(c). United States v.
Luskin, 926 F.2d 372, 376-77 (4th Cir. 1991); see United States
v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477, (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that defendant’s
conviction on four crime-of-violence charges constituted
separate predicate offenses, each of which supported consecutive
firearms offense sentence). Here, Williams’ separate § 924(c)
sentences were based his separate convictions for armed bank
robbery.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --