United States v. William Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188

Background

U.S. Marshals located William B. Milliron driving a truck that proved to be a mobile methamphetamine lab; he led a 35-mile high-speed chase, hurled Molotov-style bottles at pursuing officers, and crashed into a building. Two improvised incendiary bottles were recovered; Milliron also carried live ammunition.
A seven-count federal indictment charged Milliron with, inter alia, assault on federal officers under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b), possession of unregistered destructive devices, drug-manufacturing and possession counts, and being a felon in possession of ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
Milliron pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to Counts 1, 4, 5, and 7 and waived most appellate rights; government agreed to dismiss remaining counts after sentencing.
Milliron moved to withdraw his plea, alleging counsel failed to explain that § 111(b) requires intent to cause injury; the district court denied the motion after treating it as an ineffective-assistance claim.
The PSR applied enhancements (two-level under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) and three-level under USSG § 2A2.4(b)(1)(B)) treating the Molotov bottles as "dangerous weapons," yielding an adjusted offense level 22 and a Guidelines range of 77–96 months (Criminal History V). The court varied 14 months above the range and sentenced Milliron to 110 months.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: (1) Milliron’s appellate waiver barred review of his plea-withdrawal challenge and his plea was knowing; (2) § 111(b) is a general-intent offense (no intent-to-harm element); (3) the Guideline weapon enhancements applied to the Molotov bottles; and (4) the 110-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate waiver bars review of denial of motion to withdraw plea	Milliron: district court used wrong legal standard; ineffective assistance denied his ability to withdraw plea	Government: plea agreement valid and waiver knowingly and voluntarily made; plea-withdrawal claim falls within waiver	Waiver valid; plea knowing; appeal of plea-withdrawal barred
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) requires specific intent to cause bodily injury	Milliron: § 111(b) requires intent to cause injury, so plea was not knowing	Government: § 111(b) lacks specific-intent language; is a general-intent offense	§ 111(b) is a general-intent crime; no intent-to-harm element required
Whether Molotov bottles qualify as "dangerous weapon" for USSG §§ 2A2.4 and 2D1.1 enhancements	Milliron: challenges application of weapon enhancements	Government: improvised incendiaries are capable of causing serious injury and were used in a dangerous manner	Molotov bottles are "dangerous weapons" under the functional, objective test; enhancements apply
Whether the 110-month sentence (14 months above Guidelines) was reasonable	Milliron: variance excessive; court relied on uncharged conduct and failed to weigh mitigating background	Government: variance modest; case outside the Guidelines "heartland"; court considered § 3553(a) factors	Variance upheld as procedurally and substantively reasonable; court adequately explained and justified the upward variance

Key Cases Cited

Mezzanatto v. United States, 513 U.S. 196 (plea waivers enforceable when knowing and voluntary)
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (plea is invalid if defendant not informed of essential elements)
United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800 (§ 111(a) is a general-intent crime; elements framework)
United States v. Tolbert, 668 F.3d 798 (functional approach to what constitutes a "dangerous weapon" under the Guidelines)
United States v. Callahan, 801 F.3d 606 (illustrative examples treating varied objects as dangerous weapons under the functional test)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing reasonableness)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may vary from Guidelines when case falls outside the Guidelines’ heartland)