United States v. Demetrius Williams
522 F. App'x 278
6th Cir.2013Background
- Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime (Count One) and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (Count Two) and sentenced to 60 months on each count (120 months total).
- The prior appeal vacated Count One and remanded for proceedings; the remand was limited in scope.
- On remand, Williams pleaded again to Count One; the district court resentenced Count One to the same 60-month term and did not revisit Count Two.
- Williams argues the district court should have revisited Count Two in light of rehabilitation and the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes.
- This court held the remand was limited to Count One, no plain error occurred, and the district court could not revisit Count Two; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand authority after limited remand | Williams seeks reconsideration of Count Two | Remand restricted to Count One only | Limited remand; Count Two cannot be revisited; affirmed |
| Whether rehabilitation and FSA changes could affect Count Two on remand | Should consider rehabilitation and new mandatory minimum | Remand scope does not permit revisiting Count Two | No plain error and outside remand scope; affirmed |
| Applicability of Pepper, Dorsey, Pasquarille to remand rules here | These cases support broader remand authority | These cases do not authorize exceeding a limited remand | These authorities do not permit revisiting Count Two under the limited remand; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (post-sentencing rehabilitation may be considered but not to exceed remand scope)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (applies revised mandatory minimums only to cases not yet sentenced as of FSA effective date)
- Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1997) (motion to vacate does not govern limited remand power)
- United States v. Orlando, 363 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (limits of district court authority under limited remand)
- United States v. Moore, 131 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (limited remand authority defined by scope of remand)
- United States v. Hammond, 712 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2013) (relevance of FSA changes on prior sentences in remand context)