United States v. David Williford
699 F. App'x 400
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant David K. Williford pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and received a 72‑month within‑Guidelines sentence.
- Williford challenged application of Sentencing Guideline §2G2.2 and several specific guideline enhancements.
- He argued §2G2.2 lacks empirical basis and fails to distinguish culpability among offenders.
- He contested procedural errors: insufficient explanation for rejecting his challenges, for applying the §2G2.2(b)(6) computer enhancement, and for imposing a 72‑month term.
- He disputed factual findings supporting the five‑level §2G2.2(b)(7)(D) enhancement (more than 600 images).
- He claimed the sentence was substantively unreasonable given his military/firefighter service, lack of production/distribution, age/low recidivism risk, and limited criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Williford's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of §2G2.2 (empirical basis / overbreadth) | §2G2.2 is invalid because it lacks empirical support and treats low/high culpability the same; asks court to reconsider Miller | Miller controls; no intervening change in law to permit overruling by a panel | Rejected; bound by Miller under rule of orderliness |
| Procedural error — inadequate explanation for rejecting guideline challenges and for sentence | District court failed to give sufficient reasons for rejecting his challenges and for imposing 72 months | Any error was harmless; defendant hasn’t shown a more detailed explanation would have changed the outcome | Rejected; no plain error affecting substantial rights |
| §2G2.2(b)(6) computer enhancement / double counting | Enhancement criticized by Sentencing Commission as ubiquitous and potentially double counts | §2G2.2(b)(6) does not prohibit double counting; precedent permits application | Rejected; no error in applying the enhancement |
| §2G2.2(b)(7)(D) 600+ images enhancement (factual finding) | Conflicting reports on image count; court clearly erred in selecting higher report | District court’s factual finding was plausible on the record as a whole | Rejected; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Substantive reasonableness of 72‑month sentence | Court gave insufficient weight to military/firefighter service, non‑production/distribution, age/low recidivism, limited history | Court considered §3553(a) factors and a within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal | Rejected; sentence not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholding §2G2.2 challenges; controlling precedent)
- United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2014) (rule of orderliness on panel decisions)
- United States v. Mondragon‑Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain‑error standard for sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Roetcisoender, 792 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2015) (§2G2.2(b)(6) and double counting analysis)
- United States v. Cedillo‑Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2014) (clear‑error review of sentencing factfindings)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
- United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) (substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)