United States v. Marquan Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-4137
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4137 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARQUAN LEON WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00272-TDS-1)

Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4137 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Marquan Leon Williams pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a convicted

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The United States Probation Office

prepared a presentence investigation report that applied a cross-reference to attempted

murder under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§§ 2A2.1, 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) (2023). Over Williams’ objections, the district court applied this

cross-reference and increased Williams’ 84- to 105-month advisory Guidelines range

to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum sentence for the offense. The district

court sentenced Williams to 115 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Williams’ counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court miscalculated

Williams’ advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by applying the attempted murder cross-

reference. Although notified of his right to do so, Williams has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Rather than evaluating the merits of a defendant’s challenge to the calculation of the

Guidelines range, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.”

United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

marks omitted). To apply the assumed error harmlessness inquiry, we must find that

“(1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the

Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable even if the

Guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Mills, 917

F.3d 324, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation modified). Here, the district court stated during the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4137 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

sentencing hearing that it would have imposed the same 115-month sentence even if it had

miscalculated the Guidelines range. We thus conclude that the first requirement of the

assumed error harmlessness inquiry is satisfied. See Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 383.

Next, we must assess whether Williams’ sentence would be substantively

reasonable even if the district court had sustained his objection to the application of the

attempted murder cross-reference. We are satisfied that the 115-month sentence imposed

by the district court is substantively reasonable even under an assumed Guidelines range

of 84 to 105 months. The district court adequately explained why a 115-month sentence

was necessary in terms of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mendoza-

Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that substantive reasonableness

review requires an examination of “the totality of the circumstances to see whether the

sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the

standards set forth in § 3553(a)”).

In particular, the district court emphasized that Williams’ offense—which involved

breaking into a residence, firing a gun, and wounding an occupant—was “a very serious

offense” and evidenced a “total disregard for the others in the apartment.” The court

expressed concern that Williams was extremely dangerous, noting his prior conviction for

shooting into occupied vehicles. The court determined that a 115-month sentence would

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, protect the public

from any future crimes Williams might commit, and afford adequate deterrence. Because

Williams’ sentence is supported by the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a)

factors, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. For those reasons,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4137 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

assuming without deciding that the court erred by applying the cross-reference, we are

satisfied that any error was harmless. See Mills, 917 F.3d at 330.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for review. 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED