United States v. Donnell Williamson
701 F. App'x 212
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Williamson, Duckett, and Foster were charged in a reverse-sting related to a fictitious "stash house": Hobbs Act conspiracy; cocaine distribution conspiracy; firearms-in-furtherance and conspiracy charges; Duckett also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Foster was later acquitted.
- Williamson pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy (Count Two) and a § 924(c) count (Count Four); sentenced to 138 months plus a consecutive 60 months. Duckett pleaded guilty to five counts and received 180 months.
- Williamson moved to withdraw his plea asserting entrapment; the district court denied the motion after a hearing. Williamson also received a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for false testimony at the plea/withdrawal hearing.
- Duckett moved (one year after plea) to dismiss for selective prosecution and separately sought substitute counsel after defense counsel raised a concern about plea-offer communications. The district court denied both requests.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: denial of Williamson’s plea-withdrawal motion and obstruction enhancement; denial of Duckett’s untimely selective-prosecution motion and denial of substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williamson could withdraw his guilty plea based on entrapment | Williamson: plea was involuntary because he was entrapped; he credibly asserted innocence | Government: Rule 11 colloquy was proper; record shows predisposition and active planning by Williamson; delay and counsel satisfaction cut against withdrawal | Denied. Court found a proper Rule 11 colloquy, Williamson was predisposed, delay and counsel factors weighed against withdrawal |
| Whether obstruction enhancement under § 3C1.1 was improperly applied | Williamson: statements at Rule 11 were not false or not willfully false | Government: Williamson admitted at the withdrawal hearing that he lied about voluntariness, satisfaction with counsel, and Statement of Facts | Affirmed. District court found false, material, willful testimony by preponderance; enhancement not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Duckett’s selective-prosecution claim (racial animus) should be considered despite late filing | Duckett: prosecution motivated by racial animus; claim raised after plea | Government: motion untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3); no new material evidence shown to excuse delay | Denied. Court held motion untimely and Duckett offered no good cause or new evidence to excuse delay |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing substitution of counsel | Duckett: conflict over counsel’s communications about expired plea offers warranted new counsel | Government/District Court: court conducted inquiry; counsel had substantial time on case and no breakdown preventing adequate defense | Denied. Inquiry adequate and no communication breakdown preventing adequate representation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (proper Rule 11 creates a strong presumption the plea is final)
- United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408 (4th Cir. 2003) (factors for plea-withdrawal analysis; importance of Rule 11 colloquy)
- United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991) (nonexclusive factors for evaluating motions to withdraw pleas)
- United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2000) (defendant bears burden to show fair and just reason to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1992) (entrapment burden-shifting; predisposition analysis)
- United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 2000) (government can defeat entrapment by proving predisposition)
- United States v. Ramos, 462 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2006) (entrapment elements defined)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (standard for sentencing enhancement based on perjured testimony)
- United States v. Andrews, 808 F.3d 964 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for obstruction-of-justice enhancement)
- United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (delay between plea and withdrawal motion weighs against withdrawal)
- United States v. Smith, 640 F.3d 580 (4th Cir. 2011) (standards for substitution of counsel review)
- United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denying substitute counsel)