United States v. Williams
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25285
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Williams challenged sentence for felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- On prior appeal (Williams I), court vacated and remanded over the district court’s modified categorical analysis of Nebraska’s escape statute § 28-912(1).
- Nebraska escape statute criminalizes unlawful removal from custody (crime of violence) and failure to report (not a crime of violence).
- District court, at resentencing, relied on charging documents and plea transcript to determine which part of the statute Williams violated, determining unlawful removal.
- No-contest plea proceeding allowed the district court to treat Williams as convicted under unlawful removal; sentence then included § 2K2.1(a)(3) enhancement; Williams appeals again.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nebraska escape conviction is a crime of violence. | Williams contends the no-contest plea facts do not support unlawful removal. | U.S. argues unlawful removal fits crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a). | Conviction is for unlawful removal, a crime of violence. |
| Whether a no-contest plea transcripts can establish the applicable statute part under Taylor/Shepard. | Williams asserts plea facts cannot be used to determine the statute part. | Government may use plea colloquy to identify the violated part. | Plea transcript admissible; plea admits underlying facts; supports modified categorical approach. |
| Whether the plea facts alone establish the conviction under unlawful removal. | No specific facts showing temporary leave; supports not failing to report. | Facts show removal from custody, consistent with unlawful removal. | Facts support unlawful removal conviction. |
| Whether evidence meets preponderance standard to apply § 2K2.1(a)(3). | N/A or not challenged. | Preponderance shows crime of violence. | Enhancement applied. |
| Whether Rule 410 and sentencing evidence restrictions apply. | Rule 410 does not bar sentencing evidence. | Evidence admissible; sentencing under no Rule 410 prohibition. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Howell, 531 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2008) (modified categorical approach governs which part of statute is violated)
- United States v. Pearson, 553 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2009) (crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a))
- United States v. Forrest, 611 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard for prior conviction as crime of violence)
- United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. 2010) (vacated sentence; remanded for proper Taylor/Shepard analysis)
- United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (Alford/plea evidence in sentencing)
- United States v. Flores-Vasquez, 641 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2011) (allows defendant to confirm prosecution's factual proffers in plea)