United States v. Kerajia Williamson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5461
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Williamson pleaded guilty to three federal offenses in two consolidated matters: two separate counterfeiting conspiracies (18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a), 371) and one count of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341).
- First conspiracy: Williamson helped print and distribute counterfeit checks using stolen Social Security numbers; she was arrested after a warrant search in April 2013 and admitted involvement.
- Second conspiracy: After an associate (Martez Williams) was released, Williamson again cashed counterfeit checks in August 2013; she played a leadership role in schemes at multiple stores.
- Mail fraud: Williamson falsely reported her car stolen and wrecked to obtain $8,432.83 from her insurer.
- At sentencing the advisory Guidelines range was 8–14 months; the government sought three consecutive 10-month terms (total 30 months) for incremental punishment; the district court imposed consecutive 10-month sentences on each count under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Williamson appealed, arguing procedural error in imposing consecutive sentences (and misapplying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c)) and that the 30-month total was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williamson) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by imposing consecutive sentences and declining to follow U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c) | Court failed to explain consecutive sentences and should have followed § 5G1.2(c) guidance | Guidelines do not bind district court on concurrency when total < statutory max; court considered § 3553(a) and gave reasons for consecutive terms | No error; district court properly considered § 3553(a) and permissibly imposed consecutive sentences (Guidelines advisory only) |
| Whether the 30-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors (employment, schooling, child, minimal record, influence of Williams) | Aggravating factors (leadership role, quick return to fraud after arrest) outweighed mitigation; district court acted within broad discretion | Sentence was substantively reasonable; court did not abuse discretion in weighing factors and imposing an upward variance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2011) (advisory Guidelines do not mandate concurrent sentences; district court may impose consecutive terms considering § 3553(a))
- United States v. Lone Fight, 625 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court discretion on consecutive vs concurrent sentences under advisory Guidelines)
- United States v. Jarvis, 606 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2010) (same)
- United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (same)
- United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2015) (appellate review will not sustain procedural challenge when defendant did not object to explanation at sentencing)
- United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (adequacy of sentencing explanation for consecutive terms assessed against § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Gant, 721 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court has broad discretion to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing)