United States v. Williams, Case No. 97–CR–171–JHP.

• Decision Date: 18 April 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 97–CR–171–JHP.
• Citation: 16 F.Supp.3d 1301
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Dan WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

16 F.Supp.3d 1301

UNITED STATES of America, Respondent

v.Jeffrey Dan WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

Case No. 97–CR–171–JHP.

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

Signed April 18, 2014.

Phil E. Pinnell, Robert Thames Raley, United States Attorney's Office, Tulsa, OK, for Respondent.

Jeffrey Williams, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

OPINION and ORDER

JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge.

Jeffrey Williams pled guilty in 1998, to federal drug and firearm charges. The record reveals Williams has steadfastly attempted to withdraw his plea of guilty alleging actual innocence and that his plea was coerced and based upon fabricated evidence and perjured testimony.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The undisputed procedural background is set forth in this Court's February 27, 2012, Order granting Williams discovery and appointing counsel as follows:

On November 6, 1997, the grand jury for the Northern District of Oklahoma returned a four Count Indictment. Defendant was charged with (1) one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and conspiracy to maintain various locations for manufacturing methamphetamine; (2) two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; and (3) one count of knowingly carrying a firearm during drug trafficking. Defendant contends the Indictment was primarily based on two state court cases. Specifically, Defendant alleges Counts 2, 3 and 4 involved the state court cases which supported the conspiracy charge in Count 1.¹

Defendant pled not guilty, and filed three Motions to Suppress on December 15, 1997 (Dkt. # s 5, 6, & 18). A total of four Indictments were filed, the original and three Superseding Indictments (Dkt. # s 1, 9, 42, & 140). Defendant plead not guilty to each Indictment. Defendant contends, however, that after pleading not guilty on May 18, 1998 (Dkt. # 144) to the Third Superseding Indictment, his counsel advised him “if he did not plead guilty, the government intended to file a Fourth Superseding Indictment, adding CCE and including Petitioner's little sister on the Indictment. Petitioner gave up and agreed to plead guilty.” (Dkt. # 542 at 16). Defendant entered a guilty plea on May 21, 1998 and sentencing was set for September 15, 1998. (Dkt. # 144).

Subsequently, the Presentence Report (“PSR”) was completed by the United States Probation Office of the Northern District of Oklahoma. Defendant filed objections to all of the enhancements, including the drug quantity calculation. On August 31, 1998, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw his plea (Dkt. # 233). This motion was denied by the Honorable H. Dale Cook on September 10, 1998 and Defendant's sentencing was continued until November 19, 1998 (Dkt. # 239). On November 13, 1998, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider his Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea (Dkt. # 276).

On November 19, 1998, Defendant appeared for sentencing. Counsel first reurged Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. This motion was denied. Counsel next argued the drug quantity was incorrect. The Government presented the testimony of DEA Agent Leon Frances to support the drug quantity calculations. Agent Frances based his calculations on statements of informants, stating that one of the informants, Gregg Fillmore, stated Defendant was responsible for 385 ounces. During allocution, Defendant alleged the following:

Defendant: I apologize for being a burden, Your Honor, but the information that the government has gathered has all been based on co-defendants' testimony or witness testimony. At no time have I made a statement or a comment admitting to any of this except for entering a plea agreement that I didn't want to enter in the first place.

Gregg Fillmore, one of the witnesses, that the codefendant—or the government is saying is responsible for like 380 ounces, I've never met that person in my life. I don't even know who he is.

Now, the rest of those people I know them, but I have no idea who that person is. So how can this information be true or accurate when I've never met this man in my life (Sentencing Tr. at 21–22).

The Honorable H. Dale Cook denied Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and sentenced Defendant to 360 months as to Counts 1, 2, and 3 and 60 months of consecutive imprisonment for Count 4. Judgment was entered on December 4, 1998 (Dkt. # 283).

Defendant filed a direct appeal four days later on December 8, 1998 (Dkt. # 286). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the District Court on January 25, 2000 (Dkt. # 335). Thereafter, Defendant filed a Petition for Certiorari which was denied on May 23, 2000 (Dkt. # 345).

On January 4, 2001, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. # 365). Defendant raised thirteen ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including several asserting counsel's failure to object to sentence enhancements that allegedly violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This Court denied relief and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. United States v. Williams, 44 Fed.Appx. 443 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1138, 123 S.Ct. 929, 154 L.Ed.2d 832 (2003) (Dkt. # 425). Thereafter, Defendant filed three additional motions which were construed by the Tenth Circuit as requests to file successive § 2255 motions (Dkt. # s 432, 446 # 468), and Defendant was denied authorization to file them.

On March 5, 2009, this case was randomly reassigned to this Court for review.²

On November 17, 2010, Defendant filed a “Combined Pro Se Request For Discovery, Request For Expansion of the Record, and for an Evidentiary Hearing” (Docket No. 514). In this motion Defendant claimed “that at least five of the Tulsa Police Officers who have either been indicted, pled guilty, or are awaiting trial, as a result of the grand jury corruption probe, were involved in the investigation of Petitioner's criminal case, and his arrests. These officers fabricated and manipulated the evidence, witnesses, and informants, resulting in Petitioner's unconstitutional indictment, guilty plea and unjust 35–year sentence.” (Defendant's Br. At 2–3).³ Defendant noted that if he “would have had proof of the officers corruption, at that time, he would have received a substantially lower sentence. As it stands, Petitioner's conviction and sentence constitute a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id.

Petitioner also again attacked the credibility of Greg Fillmore, one of the witnesses that DEA Agent Francis interviewed in determining the drug quantity attributable to Williams. Williams contends Officers Henderson, Wells and Gray used undue influence to persuade Gregg Fillmore to provide evidence to law enforcement. Specifically, Williams contends Gregg Fillmore was charged by Information in The District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, on July 1, 1993, with Murder in the First Degree. Williams contends this charge was dismissed on April 14, 1994, in exchange for Fillmore's cooperation as an informant. Williams contends the evidence supplied by Fillmore was fabricated and resulted in a gross exaggeration of the drug quantity attributable to him as additional relevant conduct at sentencing. In support of this motion, Williams included the following:

(1) District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma records establishing the charge filed against Gregg Fillmore for First Degree Murder, and the ultimate dismissal of that charge.

(2) A notarized statement from his sister, Susan Weatherman, claiming that she went to Fillmore's home, escorted by a Claremore police officer, and confronted Fillmore. Ms. Weatherman stated she “informed Mr. Fillmore that [she] was in possession of statements from various persons indicating that he had provided information to police about Jeff Williams, [her] brother, that was not true. [She] informed him that [she] knew he was a false informant and that he didn't even know [her] brother.” Fillmore could not identify Williams. Further, Ms. Weatherman asked Fillmore to sign a statement, and told him she “just needed him to tell the truth.” She alleges when Fillmore read the statement “he became very agitated and cut us short. He said he would think about it and let me know in a couple of days.” Ms. Weatherman told Fillmore she would contact him through the Claremore Police Department.

After they left Fillmore's house, Ms. Weatherman states the officer told her “he felt like [Fillmore] might make the statement to keep me quiet about his wife's unsolved murder or that he might not for that very same reason because of consequences if he told ...” Ms. Weatherman states that when she contacted the Claremore Police Department, three days later, officers would not speak with her regarding Fillmore because they had received information that Fillmore was currently under witness protection with the United States Attorney's Office. Ms. Weatherman concluded that “[s]ince April 4, 2011 when [she] spoke to Gregg Fillmore [she] had received two threatening phone calls. They were on [her] cell phone which is not listed. She stated, “I do not know who it was either time or how they got my number but it was a male voice and the first call said “You need to keep your F...ing nose out of peoples' business if you know what's good for you and the second call was “You better watch your F...ing back.”

(3) A notarized statement from a woman named Stephanie Stutsman–Dickens claiming that Fillmore stated in her presence that he did not know Williams and had provided information regarding drug quantities to prevent officers from pursuing him for the murder of his wife.

(4) A notarized letter from a woman named Aubrey Ferrell, claiming that Fillmore had asked her to introduce him to Jeff Williams. Ferrell also asserts that Fillmore had told her he was an informant for the Tulsa Police Department's Special Investigations Division.

(5) A notarized statement from a woman named Tara Moles, claiming that Fillmore...