United States of America v. David Allen Williams

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ALLEN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30241
D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00058-RFC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
David Williams appeals from the 240-month sentence for receipt and
distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2) and
2252A(a)(5)(B), imposed upon remand for resentencing. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Williams contends that the district court failed to consider and to properly
weigh certain factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , including his poor health,
advanced age, and low statistical probability of recidivism, resulting in a sentence
that was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
“[T]he abuse of discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of
all sentencing decisions – whether inside or outside the Guidelines range.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). Although we do not apply a presumption of
reasonableness, “when the judge’s discretionary decision accords with the
[Sentencing] Commission’s view of the appropriate application of § 3553(a) in the
mine run of cases, it is probable that the sentence is reasonable.” United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338 (2007)).
Here, the district court imposed a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range. The court considered that the defendant’s statistical probability of
recidivism because of his advanced age was offset by his commission of the offense
at an advanced age, as well as the psychosexual evaluation which noted that the
defendant posed a danger to the public. The record reflects that the district court
properly acknowledged and considered the arguments of the parties, discussed the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
application of § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence “sufficient, but not greater
than necessary” to achieve the aims of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --