United States v. Williams, No. 17-3040 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, interference with commerce by robbery (or a Hobbs Act robbery), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense or a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant's crimes stemmed from a robbery and shooting of an individual from whom defendant had arranged to purchase a large amount of marijuana.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the crimes; because the court affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, which was undisputedly a drug-trafficking offense, the predicate offense necessitated by 18 U.S.C. 924(c) was satisfied without regard to whether a Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence; and, although defendant's 150 month sentence exceeded the 60 month statutory maximum based upon the quantity of marijuana involved, defendant failed to show the prejudice required to vacate his sentence.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, interference with commerce by robbery, using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense and being a felon in possession of a firearm; because the court affirms defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, which is undisputedly a drug trafficking offense, the predicate offense required to support a conviction for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense is satisfied without regard to whether a Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence; while defendant's 150-month sentence for the conspiracy exceeds the 60-month statutory maximum applicable to the amount of marijuana involved, his sentence does not need to be vacated and the matter does not need to be remanded for resentencing under the sentencing package doctrine because the same 150-month sentence was lawfully imposed on two other counts, and there is no indication the district court would have imposed a different sentence for either of the counts for which defendant received a 150-month sentence or that the district court's evaluation of the 3553(a) factors would have been any different if the court had used the correct statutory maximum for the conspiracy count. [ December 14, 2018
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.