Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4340
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00081-F-1)
Submitted:
March 21, 2014
Before WYNN and

Circuit Judge.
FLOYD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
May 13, 2014
HAMILTON,
Senior
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Hawes, THE EDMISTEN, WEBB & HAWES LAW FIRM, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew
Williams
appeals
the
forty-two-month
sentence
imposed after he pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one

count
of
conspiracy
to
falsely
make
and
counterfeit
United
States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (2012), one

count of counterfeiting United States currency and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 471, 2 (2012), and one
count
of
possession
abetting,
appeal,
in
of
violation
Williams
counterfeit
of
argues
18
currency
U.S.C.
that
the
472,
district
and
2
aiding
(2012).
court
erred
and
On
in
imposing an enhancement to his offense level for obstruction of

justice pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG)
3C1.1 (2012), that the court erred in denying him a reduction
in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, and that
the
court
rejection
erred
of
in
his
failing
to
objections
adequately
to
the
explain
presentence
either
its
investigation
report (PSR), or its determination of his sentence.
We vacate
and remand for further proceedings.

This
court
substantive
reviews
reasonableness
sentence
under
an
for
procedural
abuse-of-discretion
standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
evaluating
procedural
district
court
reasonableness,
properly
calculated
we
the
and
consider
whether
defendants
In
the
advisory
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for

2
an
appropriate
sentence,
considered
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2012) factors, selected a sentence supported by the record, and

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
49-51.
Gall, 552 U.S. at
If there are no significant procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

into account the totality of the circumstances.
United States
v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

The district court is not required to robotically tick
through
3553(a)s
Johnson,
445
F.3d
district
court
every
339,
must
subsection.
345
place
(4th
on
Cir.
the
United
2006).
record
States
However,
an
v.
the
individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.

This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.
United
States
v.
Carter,
564
F.3d
325,
330
(4th
Cir.
2009)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal citation and footnote

omitted)).
sentence,
When the district court imposes a within-Guidelines

it
may
provide
less
extensive,
while
still
individualized explanation.
United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d
625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009).
Nonetheless, the sentencing court
must
facts
apply
the
relevant
presented,
and
it
3553(a)
must
factors
state
in
to
the
open
particular
court
the
particular reasons that support its chosen sentence.
Carter,
564 F.3d at 328 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)).

We conclude that the district court abused its discretion
in sentencing Williams because it failed to adequately explain
in open court its sentencing determination.
Specifically, the
district court failed to conduct an individualized application

of the 3553(a) factors.
The district courts explanation of
Williamss sentencewhich mentions, but never assesses any of

the 3553(a) factorsdoes not provide a rationale tailored to
the
particular
district
case
courts
at
hand[.]
explanation
Id.
could
at
apply
330.
to
Rather,
any
the
sentence,
regardless of the offense, the defendants personal background,

or the defendants criminal history.
Id. at 329.
We thus
conclude that the district court procedurally erred in failing

to provide an individually tailored explanation, and we cannot
effectively review Williamss sentence.
Accordingly, we vacate Williamss sentence and remand for
resentencing.
revisit
its
At
resentencing,
Guidelines
the
district
calculations,
which
court
were
need
not
correct.
However, the district court must entertain Williamss arguments

for a sentence below the Guidelines range, apply the relevant
3553(a) factors to the facts of Williamss case, and state with
particularity its reasoning behind its chosen

dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
sentence. *
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Because
we
vacate
and
remand
for
procedural
unreasonableness,
we
express
no
opinion
regarding
the
substantive reasonableness of the forty-two-month sentence. See
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (If,
and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence[.]
(quotation mark omitted)).

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

March 21, 2014

Before WYNN and

May 13, 2014

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

imposed after he pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one

States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (2012), one

imposing an enhancement to his offense level for obstruction of

report (PSR), or its determination of his sentence.

and remand for further proceedings.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for

(2012) factors, selected a sentence supported by the record, and

Gall, 552 U.S. at

If there are no significant procedural errors, we then

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.

(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal citation and footnote

When the district court imposes a within-Guidelines

United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d

625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009).

Nonetheless, the sentencing court

particular reasons that support its chosen sentence.

564 F.3d at 328 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)).

district court failed to conduct an individualized application

The district courts explanation of

Williamss sentencewhich mentions, but never assesses any of

regardless of the offense, the defendants personal background,

conclude that the district court procedurally erred in failing

However, the district court must entertain Williamss arguments

particularity its reasoning behind its chosen

VACATED AND REMANDED

You might also like