United States v. Kevin Williams
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18830
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Williams sought payment from IMA investors while offering no evidence of pertinent information.
- In Oct 2007 Williams blew up his own mailbox with a pipe bomb; a staged explosion was intended to bolster credibility.
- Investigators found a zip gun and other firearms at Williams’ residence during a house search.
- Williams sent multiple emails to the investors (Jan–Feb 2008) demanding payment and hinting at a broader conspiracy.
- Williams was later convicted in WA on nine counts, including wire fraud, extortion, and firearms offenses, based on the conduct described.
- At sentencing, the district court grouped Counts 1–7 together and Counts 8–9 together, and imposed several enhancements; on appeal, grouping and enhancements were reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper grouping under § 3D1.2(b)? | Counts 1–7 should be grouped together with 8–9 as part of one scheme. | Counts 1–7 and 8–9 involve different victims and harms; should be separate groups. | Grouping reversed; remand for regrouping and resentencing. |
| Double counting under § 2B3.2(b)(1)? | Enhancement valid because threat of harm was part of extortion and covered by the same conduct. | Double counting improper because threat-based enhancement overlaps with extortion statute. | Not error; valid application. |
| § 2B3.2(b)(2) extortion amount enhancement reasonable? | Demands exceeding $50,000 shown by multiple emails; supports enhancement. | No challenge to the factual basis; issue is whether it applies. | Upheld on the record. |
| Firearm enhancement § 2B3.2(b)(3)(iii) for mailbox bombing? | Mailbox bombing/viewed as relevant conduct to extortion. | No firearm at time of extortion; not relevant conduct to extortion. | Error; mailbox bombing not relevant conduct for extortion so enhancement cannot stand. |
| Leadership adjustment § 3B1.1(c) and Obstruction § 3C1.1 justification? | Williams led a three-person group for the mailbox bombing and false statements. | Mailbox bombing and false statements not part of the extortion offense; leadership/obstruction not justified. | Both enhancements were error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boos, 127 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 1997) (one common victim required for grouping; multiple victims negate grouping)
- United States v. Parker, 136 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 1998) (double counting analysis guidance)
- United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 1993) (permissible double counting when conduct could separately justify guideline)
- United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2002) (societal interests protected by false statement statutes)
- United States v. Nanthanseng, 221 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (societal interest protected by firearms offenses)
- United States v. Ford, 989 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1993) (interpretation of 3C1.1 obstruction guidance)
- United States v. Melchor-Zaragoza, 351 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for grouping and guidelines analysis)