United States v. Ramone Williams
899 F.3d 659
8th Cir.2018Background
- In summer 2015 Williams, a felon, was found with loaded firearms and ammunition in his vehicle; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession, possessing a stolen firearm, and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
- He had prior New York convictions, including attempted second-degree robbery committed in July 2007 when he was still a juvenile; he was convicted in March 2008 and later adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to custody.
- At sentencing the district court treated the New York attempted second-degree robbery as a crime of violence and assigned three criminal-history points for it, producing a Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
- The district court sentenced Williams to 60 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines disputes.
- Williams appealed three issues: (1) whether the New York attempted second-degree robbery is a Guidelines "crime of violence;" (2) whether three criminal-history points were improperly assessed for a pre-18 offense later adjudicated youthful offender; and (3) whether the court used the correct (2016) Guidelines Manual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY attempted 2nd-degree robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines force clause | Williams: the conviction does not require use/threat of physical force qualifying under the force clause | Government: NY robbery element "forcibly steals" requires use/threat of force capable of causing pain or injury | Court: Affirmed it is a crime of violence under the force clause (harmless if error) |
| Whether 3 criminal-history points were improperly added for offense committed before age 18 | Williams: offense was not an adult conviction due to later youthful offender adjudication, so points improper | Government: guilt was established as an adult conviction before youthful offender adjudication; sentencing placement and custody support adult classification | Court: No clear error in treating it as an adult conviction; any error harmless because sentence would be the same |
| Whether the district court applied the correct Guidelines Manual (2016 vs. 2015) | Williams: court relied on 2015 Manual instead of 2016 in effect at sentencing | Government: Williams identifies no prejudice; relevant provisions unchanged between manuals | Court: Plain‑error review fails—no prejudice shown; no reversible error |
| Whether an ACCA‑style firearm finding was required for juvenile prior | Williams: district court should have found the prior involved use/carrying of a firearm/knife/destructive device (ACCA requirement for juvenile adjudications) | Government: Guidelines do not require such a finding and court need not impose it | Court: Argument lacks merit; Guidelines do not impose that ACCA requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rembert, 851 F.3d 836 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for crime-of-violence determination)
- United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir.) (statutory interpretation holding Missouri second-degree robbery meets ACCA force clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court) (definition of "physical force" as capable of causing pain or injury)
- United States v. Williams, 690 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir.) (use of ACCA precedent as instructive for Guidelines crime-of-violence analysis)
- United States v. Idriss, 436 F.3d 946 (8th Cir.) (harmless-error principles for Guidelines misapplication)
- United States v. Driskell, 277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.) (analysis of New York youthful offender scheme and when guilt is "established")
- United States v. Simms, 695 F.3d 863 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for criminal-history calculation)
- United States v. Wilson, 184 F.3d 798 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review when failing to object to Guidelines manual)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.) (harmlessness where district court states it would impose same sentence regardless of Guidelines ruling)