United States v. Williams
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9550
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Williams, imprisoned for a 1980s pipe-bomb conviction, mailed a letter with a white powder to a federal judge claiming anthrax.
- The powder proved to be sugar; Williams was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) for threatening a federal judge.
- He represented himself at trial; elbow counsel was appointed to assist him.
- Sentencing occurred by video conference three days after trial due to concerns about Williams’ conduct.
- The district court sentenced Williams to five years, consecutively to his prior 109-year sentence, without a presentence report.
- On appeal, Williams challenged multiple trial and sentencing procedures; the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing while affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing by video conference violated Rule 43(a) and Williams’s presence right. | Williams contends he had a right to be physically present at sentencing. | The United States argues the video procedure was harmless. | Sentencing by video conference violated Rule 43(a); remanded for resentencing with Williams present. |
| Whether the district court erred by sentencing without a presentence report. | Williams contends the court could not sentence without a presentence report and could not waive it. | The United States argues a presentence report is not always required and the waiver was effective. | District court erred by relying on a waiver to sentence without a presentence report; remand for resentencing with or without a presentence report as appropriate. |
| Whether Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. | Waiver was not properly shown; court failed to make explicit findings. | Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily executed based on the colloquy. | Waiver deemed knowingly and voluntary; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davidson, 409 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review for district court rulings on Rule of Criminal Procedure)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard applicability not triggered absent request)
- United States v. Brown, 557 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009) (presentence reports may be waived in some circumstances but not by defendant)
- United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1992) (section 875(c) general intent; context for 876(c) analysis)
- United States v. Sepulveda-Contreras, 466 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2006) (video presence and Rule 43 concept discussion)
- United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2001) (video presence not permitted for sentencing under Rule 43)
- United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1999) (video presence not a substitute for physical presence at sentencing)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (subjective vs objective threats; law of threats interpretation)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review constraints for forfeited errors)