United States v. Williams
23-8073-cr
2d Cir.
Dec 6, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. The Kern County Department of Human Services filed a dependency petition regarding J.R., alleging substantial risk of serious harm due to inadequate shelter and mother's substance abuse [lines="42-48"].
  2. J.R. was discovered living in a shed with his mother, which lacked proper utilities and contained unsafe materials [lines="52-57"].
  3. Appellant C.F. was identified as the mother's boyfriend, having lived with her and J.R., but the paternity was uncertain due to prior deceased claimed father [lines="66-71"].
  4. During dependency proceedings, C.F. filed a statement asserting he is J.R.'s parent and requested presumed father status [lines="106-109"].
  5. The juvenile court denied C.F.'s request for presumed father status based on evidence that appellant had not demonstrated sufficient commitment to parental responsibilities [lines="130-135"].

Issues

  1. Did the juvenile court err in denying C.F.'s request for presumed father status under the relevant California Family Code provisions? [lines="230-231"]
  2. Did the juvenile court misinterpret the law concerning C.F.'s living arrangements in relation to presumed father status? [lines="389-392"]

Holdings

  1. The juvenile court did not err in denying C.F.'s request for presumed father status, as he failed to demonstrate a full commitment to parental responsibilities. [lines="413-414"]
  2. Even if misinterpretation occurred regarding C.F.'s living arrangements, the lack of evidence demonstrating commitment to J.R. negated the need for remand. [lines="408-409"]

OPINION

United States of America v. Shatiara Williams

No. 23-8073-cr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

December 6, 2024

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court‘s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order“). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of December, two thousand twenty four.

PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Richard C. Wesley, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges.

United States of America, Appellee, v. Shatiara Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

For Appellee: Katherine A. Gregory, Assistant United States Attorney, for Trini E. Ross, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, New York.

For Defendant-Appellant: David R. Morabito, Law Office of David R. Morabito, East Rochester, New York.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.). Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED.

Defendant Shatiara Williams appeals from the judgment of December 19, 2023, sentencing her to twenty-seven months in prison. Williams pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

Williams argues that the government breached her plea agreement and that the district court inaccurately calculated her guidelines range. Having reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, we hold that the government did not breach the plea agreement. As a result, the appellate waiver in the agreement bars her remaining challenge to the sentence of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O‘Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court