United States v. Richard Williams, No. 15-3297 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his Johnson challenge by entering into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement specifically agreeing to sentence of a certain length. [ May 12, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3297 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Tommy Williams, also known as Richard T. Williams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: May 2, 2016 Filed: May 13, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Williams appeals after the district court1 sentenced him to 77 months in prison and two years of supervised release upon his guilty plea to a felon-in1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. possession charge. Williams’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and argues in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the district court plainly erred in accepting the plea agreement, because the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), affected Williams’s advisory Guidelines range. In pro se supplemental filings, Williams also relies upon Johnson to challenge his sentence. These arguments fail, because the sentence was imposed pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, under which Williams and the government specifically agreed to a sentence of 77 months. In fact, at the time the district court accepted the plea agreement, the parties and the court had discussed Johnson at some length, and the parties still wished to proceed with the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. See United States v. Kling, 516 F.3d 702, 704-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (defendant waived Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence imposed under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, which upon acceptance became binding on government, defendant, and district court). Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
