United States v. Gregory Williams, Jr.
664 F. App'x 517
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- FBI found a firearm and ammunition in a bedroom where Williams’ girlfriend slept during a search of a residence tied to a drug-possession arrest warrant; Williams later said he was "holding it for a friend."
- The day after the search, Williams robbed a bank and was arrested; DNA on the gun linked to Eric Gooch (a serial bank robber) and others; call/text data connected Williams to Gooch and to Shawn Caldwell (another bank-robbery participant).
- Williams pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). Presentence calculation: base offense level 14, criminal history category V, acceptance of responsibility, guideline range 27–33 months.
- Government requested an above-guidelines sentence and consecutive service to state terms, arguing the gun was held for use in violent robberies, it posed danger to children, and Williams had an escalating criminal record; government had earlier (but then withdrew) a career-offender argument after Johnson.
- District court imposed 60 months (above-range) to run consecutive to state sentences (30 and 7 months), citing risk gun was for use in robberies, danger to children, escalating criminal history, need to deter gun violence in Cleveland, and statutory maximum context.
- On appeal Williams challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness of the variance and the imposition of a consecutive federal sentence; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by imposing an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (or effectively treating him as career offender) | The court effectively applied a six-level upward departure under § 4A1.3 and relied on a career-offender theory invalidated by Johnson | The court actually imposed a § 3553(a) variance, not a § 4A1.3 departure, and the government had withdrawn the career-offender claim | Court held no procedural error: district court made a § 3553(a) variance, not a § 4A1.3 departure, so Johnson-based career-offender concern is moot |
| Whether the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors (procedural reasonableness) | The court did not adequately address or explain consideration of the § 3553(a) factors | The court discussed offense circumstances, criminal history, need for deterrence and protection, and acknowledged mitigating factors before varying upward | Court held the record shows the court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors and provided adequate reasons; sentence procedurally reasonable |
| Whether the above-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | The court overemphasized criminal history and offense seriousness, producing an excessive (doubling) variance | The variance was within discretion to reflect deterrence/public-protection concerns; length still well below statutory maximum | Court held the variance was substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether imposing the federal sentence to run consecutively to state sentences was plain-error or an abuse of discretion | Consecutive sentence improper because judge failed to reference U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and commentary | Even without explicit § 5G1.3 citation, court gave clear rationale; state convictions were not relevant conduct so incremental punishment warranted | Court held no prejudicial error: consecutive sentence justified given lack of relevant-conduct overlap and § 3553(a) considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Presley, 547 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural-reasonableness requirements for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court on variance extent when § 3553(a) factors justify it)
- United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (standards for imposing consecutive sentences and need to show rationale consistent with § 5G1.3)
- United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing departures from variances)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for plain-error review of unpreserved appellate objections)
- United States v. Payton, 754 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2014) (requirement that district court provide reasoned basis for sentence)