U.S. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 10–4083–2–MWB.,CR 10–4083–2–MWB. |
| Citation | 788 F.Supp.2d 847 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,v.Billy WILLIAMS, Sr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shawn Stephen Wehde, U.S. attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.
This bill creates, for the very first time, a special penalty applicable to crack. Because crack is so potent, drug dealers need to carry much smaller quantities of crack than of cocaine powder. By treating 1,000 grams of freebase cocaine no more seriously than 1,000 grams of cocaine powder, which is far less powerful than freebase, current law provides a loophole that actually encourages drug dealers to sell the more deadly and addictive substance, and lets them sell thousands of doses without facing the maximum penalty possible.
—Sen. Alfonse Marcello D'Amato (R–N.Y.), 132 Cong. Rec. S8091–06, 1986 WL 776420 (daily ed. June 20, 1986)
The fact is, the chemical difference between crack and [powder] cocaine is the difference[ ] between water and ice. It is the same thing, and you cannot explain to a people that for doing the same thing that they should get 100–to–1 more severe treatment. It doesn't make sense.
—Rep. Keith Ellison (D–Minn.), 156 Cong. Rec. H6196–01, H6202, 2010 WL 2942883 (daily ed. July 28, 2010)
Defendant Billy Williams, Sr., came before me on March 15, 2011, for a presentencing hearing on his motion for downward variance, objections to the presentence report, and other legal issues, following his guilty plea to four crack cocaine charges. Although there were numerous other issues to be resolved in the course of Williams's sentencing, this Memorandum Opinion And Order focuses exclusively on the issue of whether I should continue to adhere to my prior determination that a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio is appropriate to calculate the guideline sentencing range for crack cocaine offenses,1 or should now adopt the roughly 18:1 ratio adopted by the Sentencing Commission on November 1, 2010, pursuant to a congressional mandate 2 in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.3 When I first learned that the 2010 FSA was about to be passed, I just assumed that I would change my opinion from a 1:1 ratio to the new 18:1 ratio, because I assumed that Congress would have had persuasive evidence—or at least some empirical or other evidence—before it as the basis to adopt that new ratio. I likewise assumed that the Sentencing Commission would have brought its institutional expertise and empirical evidence to bear, both in advising Congress and in adopting crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines based on the 18:1 ratio. Failing that, I assumed that the prosecution would present at the presentencing hearing in this case some evidence supporting the 18:1 ratio. This Memorandum Opinion And Order addresses whether my modest expectations have been fulfilled and whether I should now also adopt the 18:1 ratio adopted in the amended Sentencing Guidelines.
On December 9, 2010, defendant Billy Williams, Sr., entered a guilty plea, without a plea agreement, to four crack cocaine offenses with which he had been charged in an Indictment handed down August 19, 2010.4 On February 2, 2011, recognizing that Williams's sentencing would be the first in which I would have occasion to consider whether or not to adopt the 18:1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio adopted in the amended Sentencing Guidelines, and that the analysis of the Federal Defender on this question would be of assistance to me, I requested that the Federal Defender file a brief as amicus curiae addressing the crack-to-powder ratio issue. See Order (docket no. 235).
The Federal Defender filed the requested Amicus Curiae Brief Of Iowa Federal Defender's Office, Addressing Whether The Court Should Employ A 1:1 Crack–To–Powder Ratio In This And Future Crack Cocaine Cases (Amicus Curiae Brief) (docket no. 262) on February 25, 2011, urging me to maintain my policy of using a 1:1 ratio. On February 25, 2011, the prosecution also filed a Brief Addressing Whether The Court Should Vary From The Newest Crack Cocaine Guidelines Of 18:1 To A 1:1 Ratio Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (docket no. 263), urging me to impose, in the typical crack cocaine case, such as this one, a sentence within the applicable federal sentencing guideline range determined by the 18:1 ratio. On March 8, 2011, Williams's appointed counsel filed a Motion For Downward Variance (docket no. 274), asserting that I should vary downward and sentence Williams based on a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio. Williams adopted the Federal Defender's arguments and offered some additional arguments in support of the 1:1 ratio primarily in response to the prosecution's brief on this issue. Although the prosecution filed a Response To Defendant's Motion For Downward Variance (docket no. 280) on March 11, 2011, the prosecution did not expressly address the crack-to-powder ratio issue in that Response.
At a presentencing hearing on March 15, 2011, addressing whether or not I should adopt the new 18:1 ratio for sentencing purposes and other issues in Williams's sentencing, the prosecution was represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Shawn Wehde, the prosecutor of record, in Sioux City, Iowa, and Dan Tvedt, who authored the prosecution's brief and took the lead in arguments on the ratio issue, by telephone from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Defendant Billy Williams, Sr., was represented by appointed counsel Jay Denne of Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne in Sioux City, Iowa. Amicus curiae the Federal Defender's Office was represented by Assistant Federal Defender John Messina, by telephone from Des Moines, Iowa. The oral arguments on this issue were spirited and informative.
Nevertheless, it is surprising to me that the prosecution did not present a single scintilla of medical, chemical, physiological, or other scientific or social science evidence to support its position, despite more than adequate notice that the crack-to-powder ratio issue would be my central concern and despite the Department of Justice's virtually unlimited resources for medical and scientific information. The Department of Justice also did not cite a single authoritative journal article, let alone muster the modest effort to submit a “Brandeis Brief,” 5 in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Shull
...months. The Court sees no justification for the difference in this case, or in general. See United States v. Williams, 788 F.Supp.2d 847, 891–92, 2011 WL 1336666, at *41–42 (N.D.Iowa April 7, 2011) (adopting 1:1 ratio); United States v. Whigham, 754 F.Supp.2d 239, 247 (D.Mass.2010) (adoptin......
-
United States v. Newhouse
...as with crack, driven by hysteria surrounding perceived problems that turned out to be largely illusory. See United States v. Williams, 788 F.Supp.2d 847, 859–61 (N.D.Iowa 2011) (observing that the crack/powder cocaine disparity in the sentencing guidelines was based on Congress's unfounded......
-
United States v. Jeffers
...2013)(finding that a career offender guideline sentence was excessive, for a low-level, non-violent drug addict); United States v. Williams, 788 F.Supp.2d 847 (N.D.Iowa 2011)(rejecting, as resulting in excessive sentences, the 18:1 crack-to-powder ratio in the Sentencing Guidelines after th......
-
United States v. Feauto
...or logical basis for a relatively low amount of methamphetamine to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum.”); United States v. Williams, 788 F.Supp.2d 847 (N.D.Iowa 2011) (noting the lack of any rationale for the 18:1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio under the Fair Sentencing Act, other than co......
-
Federal sentencing
...423 (1987). 27 Id. at 540. 28 United States v. Garrison, 560 F. Supp. 2d 83, 84 (D. Mass. 2008). 29 See United States v. Williams, 788 F. Supp. 2d 847, 889 (N.D. Iowa 2011). 30 See USSG §§5G1.1, 5G1.2. 31 See id. 32 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Inter-district Differences in Federal Sentencin......