United States v. Williams, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23601

Background

Williams was convicted of distributing crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and was initially sentenced to 168 months.
On remand after Kimbrough, the district court resentenced Williams to 140 months (final offense level 28, CHC VI) within a 140–175 month range.
Williams moved to transfer his case to Judge Bennett (who had sentenced Parks) and to view Parks's PSR; Chief Judge Reade denied both motions.
Williams sought to compare his sentence to Parks for 3553(a)(6) disparity but the district court declined to vary from the guidelines.
Williams argued for consideration of post-sentence rehabilitation, which the district court expressly stated would not change his sentence.
On appeal, Williams challenges the transfer denial, PSR access denial, and the district court’s sentencing decisions; the appellate court affirms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the transfer denial an abuse of discretion?	Williams argues judge-shopping; seeks reassignment to Bennett for consistency with co-defendants.	No abuse; court-combatting is not improper; no right to a particular judge.	No abuse; denial upheld.
Did the district court err by denying access to Parks's PSR and resentencing transcript?	Access needed to argue disparity under §3553(a)(6).	No special need; much information was publicly available; PSR is confidential absent special need.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Did the district court procedurally or substantively erred under §3553(a)(6) in addressing disparity with Parks?	Court failed to adequately consider disparity with Parks and downward variance based on crack/powder ratio.	Defendant not similarly situated; district court properly considered §3553(a)(6) and rejected variance.	No reversible error; disparity consideration affirmed as appropriate.
May post-sentence rehabilitation be used to reduce sentence at resentencing?	Should consider rehabilitation to potentially reduce sentence.	Post-sentencing conduct generally not considered at resentencing in this circuit.	Harmless error; denial not reversible.
Is the sentence within the guidelines, though at the low end, substantively reasonable vis-à-vis Parks?	140-month sentence creates unwarranted disparity with Parks.	District court adequately considered factors; Williams not similarly situated; no abuse in sentence at the bottom of range.	Substantively reasonable; disparity not unwarranted.

Key Cases Cited

Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir.2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for judge transfer/recusal)
United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.2001) (motion to transfer venue to another district)
United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.2006) (parity among conspirators is difficult to achieve)
Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir.2008) (special-need standard for PSR disclosure to third parties)
Shafer, 608 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir.2010) (PSRs treated as confidential; in-camera review for exculpatory material)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may consider crack/powder disparity)
Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (U.S. 2009) (courts may vary from crack/powder Guidelines on policy disagreement)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (guidelines not mandatory; need for rational explanation)
Anderson, 618 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.2010) (post-Kimbrough crack/powder variance guidance)
Kane, 552 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.2009) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing decisions)
Henson, 550 F.3d 739 (8th Cir.2008) (scope of consideration of §3553(a) factors during sentencing)
Lee, 553 F.3d 598 (8th Cir.2009) (varying explanations in sentencing records)