USA v. Williams, No. 03-30868 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 8, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _____________________ No. 03-30868 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMMIE L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. __________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 03-CR-30006-ALL __________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Appellant Williams s conviction and sentence. See United States v. Williams, No. 03-30868, 113 Fed. Appx. 620 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, the defendant * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 timely petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari alleging for the first time in his petition that the use of the mandatory rights. sentence, Sentencing Guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated defendant s and remanded to this court for consideration of defendant s sentence in light of its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We now reconsider the matter and decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Williams s conviction and sentence. Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a defendant s Booker-related claims presented for the first time in a petition for writ of certiorari. F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). United States v. Taylor, 409 Had Williams raised his Booker- related claims in his initial appellate brief, this court would have reviewed the argument for plain error. Id. at 677. Williams concedes that he cannot show that any error affected his substantial rights, as is required under our circuit s plain error review. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Williams fails plain error review, he also fails to show extraordinary circumstances, which is a more demanding standard. Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677. 2 Williams's contentions are structural-error also foreclosed. and presumptive-prejudice See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains in effect and we REINSTATE OUR Williams s conviction and sentence. 3 EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming
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.
