United States v. Bradley Williams, 19 F.4th 374

Background

Four defendants (Williams, Bennett, Johnson, Farris) pled guilty to a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy but did not stipulate drug purity; the district court found the conspiracy involved “Ice” (≥80% d‑methamphetamine) and applied the Ice Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(c)).
The investigation covered 2016–2018 across CA, SW Virginia, and NE Tennessee; several co‑defendants pled with stipulations that the conspiracy involved Ice and produced DEA lab reports showing many samples ≥95% purity.
Each defendant objected: (a) arguing the Ice Guidelines should be rejected on policy grounds because of a 10:1 sentencing disparity; (b) contesting attribution of Ice to them individually as not reasonably foreseeable; Johnson also argued his PSR overstated criminal history and sought a variance.
The government offered lab reports, co‑defendant stipulations and testimony, confidential‑source reports, text messages, and DEA/ATF witness testimony tying Ice to the conspiracy and to each defendant’s role.
The district court overruled objections, imposed Guidelines sentences using the Ice table (with some downward departures/variances), and the Fourth Circuit affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to reject the Ice Guidelines on policy grounds (10:1 ratio)	Guidelines’ 10:1 disparity is unjust; court should categorically reject Ice Guidelines	Booker makes Guidelines advisory; district court may but is not required to reject policy; here court acted within discretion	No abuse of discretion; court permissibly declined to reject the Ice Guidelines
Whether application of the Ice Guidelines required individualized findings that Ice (≥80% purity) was reasonably foreseeable to each defendant	Court failed to make individualized foreseeability findings and/or relied on insufficient evidence; lab proof required	Preponderance standard; district court may use reliable direct and circumstantial evidence (lab results, stipulations, testimony, texts) to attribute Ice to each defendant	Affirmed: district court made individualized factual findings; not clearly erroneous under preponderance standard
What type/quality of evidence is required to prove Ice (≥80% purity) at sentencing	Argue for requirement of direct lab testing or expert/chemist proof (per Seventh Circuit) to distinguish ≥80% from slightly less pure samples	Indirect but reliable evidence (appearance, price, co‑defendant admissions, some lab tests from the conspiracy) can suffice; lab tests best but not always required	Circuit holds lab tests often best but not always required; indirect evidence may suffice if sufficiently reliable and specific to the defendant
Whether the district court failed to consider Johnson’s criminal‑history and First Step Act safety‑valve arguments	District court did not adequately address PSR overstatement and requested variance to reflect safety‑valve considerations	Court explicitly discussed the PSR limitations, granted a downward variance recognizing limited history and First Step Act change	No abuse: court addressed the arguments and granted appropriate relief (downward variance)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; courts may tailor sentences considering other statutory concerns)
United States v. Rivera‑Santana, 668 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court not required to reject Guidelines on policy grounds)
United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2012) (permitting consideration of indirect evidence about drug purity and identity at sentencing)
United States v. Carnell, 972 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2020) (requiring more specific proof of ≥80% purity than lay descriptions alone)
United States v. Irvin, 2 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1993) (coconspirator accountability for reasonably foreseeable quantities under Guidelines/Pinkerton principles)
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (foreseeability principle for coconspirator liability)
United States v. Vinson, 886 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1989) (foreseeability determinations at sentencing reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Lopes‑Montes, 165 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding attribution of higher‑purity methamphetamine based on combined evidence)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (district courts must address sentencing arguments; courts’ explanations must show consideration of issues)
United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2014) (preponderance standard for sentencing factfinding)