United States of America v. Phillip James Williams, a/k/a D, a/k/a PJ

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP JAMES WILLIAMS, a/k/a D, a/k/a PJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00073-TLW-1)
Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: October 24, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Phillip James Williams pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base and
five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006), and one count of use and carry of a firearm during
and in relation to, and possession in furtherance of, a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a), (2)
(2006). The district court sentenced Williams to 150 months in
prison for the conspiracy conviction followed by a consecutive
term of sixty months imprisonment for the firearm conviction.
We affirm.
On appeal, Williams’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he can find no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel
seeks our review of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the
reasonableness of Williams’ sentence. Williams filed a pro se
supplemental brief challenging the imposition of an enhancement
in the calculation of his advisory sentencing range under the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
Because Williams did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26
(4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the hearing transcript uncovers

-- 2 of 4 --

3
no such plain error, nor do we find cause to reverse Williams’
conviction elsewhere in the record.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review
requires us to inspect for procedural reasonableness by ensuring
that the district court committed no significant procedural
errors, such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating
the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th
Cir. 2010). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We find no merit in Williams’ claim that the district
court improperly imposed a Guidelines enhancement on the basis
of facts not found by a jury. “Sentencing judges may find facts
relevant to determining a Guidelines range by a preponderance of
the evidence, so long as that Guidelines sentence is treated as
advisory and falls within the statutory maximum” authorized by
the conviction. United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 312
(4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record reveals nothing
indicative of procedural or substantive unreasonableness on the
part of the district court in imposing Williams’ sentence.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --