United States of America v. Leprese Derrion Williams
No. 20-3443
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
April 7, 2022
Submitted: October 18, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
Leprese Williams pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of
On appeal, Williams argues the district court erred in (1) applying the sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, (2) relying on an erroneous fact during sentencing, (3) imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence, and (4) imposing an improper special condition requiring compliance with medication during substance abuse treatment without particularized findings. We affirm.
First, we consider Williams‘s challenge to the reckless endangerment enhancement. “We review for clear error a district court‘s findings with respect to reckless endangerment during flight.” United States v. Silva, 630 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Bazaldua, 506 F.3d 671, 674 (8th Cir. 2007)).
Section 3C1.2 of the Guidelines provides for a two-level increase when “the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.” The Guidelines define “reckless” as “a situation in which the defendant was aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation.”
Next, Williams argues the district court committed procedural error by relying on an erroneous fact while selecting a sentence. When a defendant fails to object during sentencing, we review alleged procedural errors for plain error. United States v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir. 2020). “To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.‘” Id. (quoting United States v. Bonnell, 932 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2019)). Here, the government concedes the district court incorrectly stated that Williams shot a gun into the air during
To demonstrate an error affected his substantial rights, Williams must show “a reasonable probability that but for the error he would have received a more favorable sentence.” Id. (quoting Bonnell, 932 F.3d at 1083). A district court‘s reliance on an erroneous fact can affect a defendant‘s substantial rights if the “fact” serves as “a ‘principal basis’ for the sentence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Durr, 875 F.3d 419, 421 (8th Cir. 2017)). In this case, the district court noted there was a “conviction in paragraph 40 where the defendant assaulted a female and pointed a gun at her several times as well as paragraph 34 where there was a carrying weapons offense where the defendant shot a gun in the air.” The district court then noted, “These are serious convictions that put in the forefront the Court‘s need to protect the public and to promote respect for the law.” This statement by the district court indicates the erroneous fact informed the sentence. However, the district court logically and grammatically linked the erroneous fact with another uncontested conviction that involved greater risk to public safety. The uncontested conviction could independently justify the district court‘s stated concern. Additionally, the district court expressly considered other factors weighing in favor of the imposed sentence such as the seriousness of the offense, the quantity of drugs in Williams‘s possession, the fact that he was a fugitive, and his violations in Polk County Jail, before pronouncing a sentence. We also note the district court chose a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range rather than the higher sentence requested by the government. We thus conclude there is not a reasonable probability that, but for the erroneous fact, the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence. Because Williams failed to establish the error affected his substantial rights, he has not satisfied the plain error standard.
Third, Williams argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Harrell, 982 F.3d at 1141 (quoting United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937, 947 (8th Cir. 2014)). “A district court abuses its discretion when it ‘fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.‘” Id. (quoting United States v. Stong, 773 F.3d 920, 926 (8th Cir. 2014)). When determining a sentence, “a district court must consider all of the factors in
Fourth, and finally, Williams argues the district court erred by requiring medication compliance in his substance abuse treatment condition of supervised release. Because Williams timely objected before the district court, we review the condition for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755, 757 (8th Cir. 2012).
The district courts “have discretion to impose special conditions of supervised release so long as the conditions are reasonably related to the sentencing factors enumerated in
Williams argues the special condition requiring compliance with a medication regimen as a part of his substance abuse treatment is both improper and unsupported by particularized findings. We address the second argument first. The district court expressly noted Williams‘s longstanding substance abuse issues, his history and characteristics, the nature of the crime, and Williams‘s violations while in Polk County Jail before the pronouncement. Further, since the record clearly demonstrates Williams‘s struggle with substance abuse, the district court did not need to reiterate those findings during the sentencing hearing. See Sterling, 959 F.3d at 861. Therefore, the special condition is sufficiently supported.
Williams‘s contention that the special condition is improper is a closer call. The district court noted “if medical professionals believe that this defendant needs medication to be able to address his medical needs, his substance abuse needs, or otherwise, then he will be required to comply with that medication.” To the extent this statement is interpreted to mean that Williams will be required to take any medication prescribed by any medical professional it could constitute an improper condition in the absence of particularized justifying findings. See United States v. Malone, 937 F.3d 1325, 1329 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding blanket medication requirements absent particularized findings constituted plain error). But viewed in context, we do not interpret the statement so broadly.
During the pronouncement, the district court continued, “The defendant must participate in a program of testing and treatment for substance abuse. You‘ll have to be evaluated, and then you‘ll have to comply with any treatment that‘s recommended based upon that medical professional‘s assessment of this defendant‘s
While medication compliance requirements may in certain circumstances risk infringing on protected constitutional liberty interests, it is currently speculative whether a medical professional will prescribe medication for Williams‘s substance abuse treatment in a way that unconstitutionally infringes on his liberty interests. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 178-79 (2003) (holding the unwanted administration of psychopharmaceuticals may infringe on a constitutionally protected liberty interest absent an overriding state interest). If, after his release, Williams is prescribed medication for substance abuse treatment that he believes unconstitutionally infringes on his rights, he “may seek a modification of his release conditions from the district court.” Trimble, 969 F.3d at 858-59 (quoting United States v. Henkel, 358 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 2003)).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.