United States v. Lance Williams, No. 17-1035 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in applying enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 2G1.3(b)(3) and Sec. 4B1.5(b)(1).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1035 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lance Bradley Williams, also known as Crush, also known as Lil'Crush lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2017 Filed: October 13, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lance Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a child, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (c), 1594(c), and the District Court1 sentenced him to 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 120 months in prison. On appeal, in a brief filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel challenges the District Court’s application of sentence enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2G1.3(b)(3) and 4B1.5(b)(1), and Williams echoes the challenge to the latter enhancement in a pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing, which included testimony that Williams used a cellular telephone to place website advertisements soliciting persons to engage in sexual conduct with the minor and testimony that Williams facilitated several acts of prostitution involving the minor over the course of the conspiracy. We find no error in the application of either enhancement. See United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir.) (setting forth the standard of review and applying Guidelines § 2G1.3(b)(3)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1039 (2011); United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (applying Guidelines § 4B1.5(b)). In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. We affirm the judgment and 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.
