United States of America v. Marquan Leon Williams

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
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 of 4 --

3
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 of 4 --

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

-- 4 of 4 --