United States v. Dorian Williams
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18402
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- An anonymous caller threatened that a black man named Dorian would board a specified flight carrying explosives at Lambert-St. Louis Airport.
- Airport security pursued the tip by checking flight schedules, passenger lists, and canine searches; flight 5938 was not bound for Washington, D.C., and had no passenger named Dorian.
- The investigation led to the arrest of Dorian Williams, who was indicted for §35(b) and §844(e) based on the threatening call.
- Before trial, Williams sought dismissal on overbreadth/vagueness grounds, which the district court denied; he did not present any evidence at trial.
- During trial Williams challenged jury instructions; after trial he challenged the sentence’s career offender enhancement; the district court denied these challenges.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, upholding constitutionality, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy, and the career offender determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are §§ 35(b) and 844(e) unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment? | Williams argues statutes sweep too broadly, criminalizing false statements about crimes regardless of harm. | Government contends statutes target true threats and true false information about serious crimes, not protected speech. | Statutes constitutional; they target true threats, not protected speech. |
| Did the district court err in denying Williams' requested jury instructions on 'willfully' and 'maliciously'? | Williams sought an objective/subjective distinction to require intent to place fear. | Court properly instructed under Mabie and related precedent emphasizing objective true-threat analysis. | No abuse of discretion; instructions were appropriate. |
| Does charging Williams under two statutes violate Double Jeopardy by applying similar elements? | Convictions under §35(b) and §844(e) are duplicative punishments for the same offense. | Counts have different elements; the Blockburger test is satisfied. | No Double Jeopardy violation; separate elements justify multiple punishments. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to sustain Williams' §35(b) and §844(e) convictions? | No reasonable recipient would view the call as a true threat; mens rea not satisfied. | Objective standard supports true threat; evidence shows knowledge of false statements and harmful intent. | Evidence sufficient; true threat standard satisfied. |
| Was Williams properly sentenced as a career offender? | Instant §844(e) offense may not be a crime of violence; disjunctive instruction clouds the basis. | Under the modified categorical approach and trial-record evidence, the conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. | Williams properly sentenced as a career offender. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (content-based restrictions require government justification)
- Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (objective true-threat test)
- Spruill, 118 F.3d 221 (4th Cir. 1997) (true threats require context)
- Leaverton, 835 F.2d 254 (10th Cir. 1987) (true threats context)
- Johnson, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (modified categorical approach exists for violence determinations)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (categorical approach for prior convictions)
- Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (Blockburger test controls duplicative punishments)
- Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Watson, 650 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2011) (crime of violence reasoning in career-offender context)
- Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) (First Amendment overbreadth framework for content restrictions)
- Beale, 620 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2010) (First Amendment overbreadth standard)