United States of America v. Reginald Williams, a/k/a Hop, a/k/a Hoppo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD WILLIAMS, a/k/a Hop, a/k/a Hoppo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:23-cr-00050-RJC-SCR-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: February 3, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: R. Brent Walker, LAW OFFICE OF R. BRENT WALKER, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Williams appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and marijuana. On appeal, Williams’s
attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), concluding
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether his prison
sentence of 180 months was procedurally and/or substantively unreasonable. Williams
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
“We ‘review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v.
Smith, 134 F.4th 248, 256 (4th Cir. 2025) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007)). “In reviewing whether a sentence is reasonable, we ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (citation modified).
“The [district] court’s explanation must satisfy us that it ‘has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making authority
in light of § 3553(a).’” Id. at 264. “A sentence is substantively unreasonable only where
under the totality of the circumstances, the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Devine, 40 F.4th 139, 153 (4th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). “‘[A]ny sentence
that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

-- 2 of 3 --

3
reasonable.’” Id. “‘[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.’” United States
v. Everett, 91 F.4th 698, 714 (4th Cir. 2024).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Williams’s sentence is procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated Williams’s advisory
Guidelines range; considered the § 3553(a) factors, Williams’s allocution, and the parties’
arguments for a downward variance; and adequately explained its decision to impose a
sentence within a two-level variance range. Williams has not rebutted the presumption that
his sentence below his advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --