United States v. Williams — Fourth Circuit affirmed cocaine convictions and a 360-month sentence

Case
United States of America v. Anthony Waiter Williams
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Judge
WILKINSON; GREGORY; RICHARDSON
Date Decided
August 18, 2026
Docket No.
25-4032
Topics
Drug Conspiracy; Evidence; Search Warrants; Sentencing
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

A jury convicted Anthony Waiter Williams of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and of possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.

Williams faced an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of life imprisonment. The district court varied downward and imposed concurrent 360-month prison terms on the two counts.

The Court’s Holding

Williams challenged the admission of statements from his post-arrest and proffer interviews, the denial of a mistrial after jurors heard an agent refer to his prior federal imprisonment, the sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence, the denial of a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit stated that it had reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed Williams’s convictions and sentence. The court also denied his request to file a pro se brief while represented on appeal.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth Circuit rejected all five asserted grounds for reversal after reviewing the record and appellate briefs.
  • The court left intact Williams’s cocaine-conspiracy and possession convictions and his concurrent 360-month sentences.
  • The unpublished opinion supplies no claim-specific analysis beyond its conclusion that the district court committed no reversible error.

Why It Matters

The decision preserves a substantial downward-variance sentence despite challenges involving Rule 410, an allegedly prejudicial reference to prior imprisonment, evidentiary sufficiency, a requested Franks hearing, and sentencing reasonableness.

Because the opinion is unpublished and contains only a summary disposition, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit and offers limited guidance on how the court evaluated the individual claims.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top