United States v. Williams, No. 17-3740 (8th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 34 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into consideration the sole mitigating factor presented by defendant—that he possessed the firearm for a good reason. In this case, the court observed that defendant's conduct was repeated conduct and defendant had previously spent time in prison for committing the instant offense, and that he was not deterred from committing it again.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3740 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Willie Gill Williams lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: November 12, 2018 Filed: January 28, 2019 [Published] ____________ Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Willie Gill Williams pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court1 adopted the presentence investigation report, to which Williams did not object, and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment. Williams requested a downward variance, arguing that the only reason he had possessed the firearm was to remove it from a house where children could access it. He also asked for drug and mental health treatment. The district court noted that Williams had previously been convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and therefore “knew [he was] not supposed to possess this gun[, e]ven though [he] may have had good intentions of possessing it.” The court imposed a 34-month term of imprisonment and 3-year term of supervised release, and recommended drug and mental health treatment. Williams appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 812 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). “A sentencing court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” Id. (quoting United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2012)). A within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable. United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016). Williams has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. The district court took into consideration the sole mitigating factor presented by Williams—that he possessed the firearm for a good reason. The court discussed the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including its observations that “this conduct is repeated conduct,” and that the time Williams previously spent in 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- prison had not deterred him from committing the instant offense. Under these circumstances, the sentence was not unreasonable. The district court’s judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
Primary Holding

Defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into consideration the sole mitigating factor presented by defendant.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.