United States v. Williams
Decision Date | 16 August 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 18-2422,18-2422 |
Citation | 934 F.3d 804 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Chance Garrett WILLIAMS Defendant - Appellant |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who represented the appellant was Jennifer Albertson, AFPD, and Scott Dr. McGregor, AFPD, of Rapid City, SD.
Counsel who represented the appellee was Sarah Boensch Collins, AUSA, of Rapid City, SD.
Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
Chance Garrett Williams pled guilty to two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). He appeals his consecutive sentences. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Based on Williams’ total offense level of 43 and his criminal history category of I, the Sentencing Guidelines recommend life imprisonment. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), the statutory maximum sentence is 30 years for each count, or 60 for both. The district court1 sentenced Williams to consecutive sentences of 360 months’ imprisonment on each count, for a total custodial sentence of 720 months (60 years). Williams asserts that (1) the district court erred in making his sentences consecutive, rather than concurrent, and (2) his sentence creates an unwarranted disparity and is substantively unreasonable.
The government argues that the written plea agreement forecloses the appeal. "As a general rule, a defendant is allowed to waive appellate rights." United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). However, the government first must prove that "the appeal is clearly and unambiguously within the scope of the waiver." United States v. McIntosh , 492 F.3d 956, 959 (8th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). The defendant also must have entered into the plea agreement "knowingly and voluntarily." Andis , 333 F.3d at 890. This court "will not enforce a waiver where to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice." Id. This court reviews de novo "[w]hether a valid waiver of appellate rights occurred." United States v. Sisco , 576 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir. 2009).
"Where a plea agreement is ambiguous, the ambiguities are construed against the government." Margalli-Olvera v. I.N.S ., 43 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 1994). In the plea agreement, Williams waived his right "to appeal any non-jurisdictional issues" with these exceptions:
The plea agreement thus prohibits Williams from appealing a sentence "up to and including his 30 year recommendation." This could be interpreted to mean that Williams may appeal a total sentence longer than 30 years. In this case—where 30 years was the mandatory minimum for both counts combined (15 years each), and also the statutory maximum on each count individually—the waiver’s reference to "30 year recommendation" is unclear and ambiguous.
Reviewing the waiver, the magistrate judge explained that Williams could appeal "if there’s an upward departure that goes above and beyond the 30 years" or "if an upward departure variance would place you above the 30-year mandatory minimum and you receive a sentence as such." The government admits this explanation "lacked optimal clarity." This court agrees. The explanation does not clarify the ambiguous language of the written agreement, and it does not ensure that Williams understood the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Fugate , 158 Fed. Appx. 748, 749 (8th Cir. 2005) ( ).
Because the appeal waiver is ambiguous and the district court did not adequately ensure Williams entered into it knowingly and voluntarily, this court does not enforce the waiver.
Williams asserts that the district court erred in ordering his sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently. Williams did not object to consecutive sentences at sentencing, so this court reviews for plain error.
United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz , 828 F.3d 668, 670 (8th Cir. 2016). Under plain error review, Williams 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." United States v. Keller , 413 F.3d 706, 710 (8th Cir. 2005), quoting Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).
"In fashioning sentences, whether concurrent or consecutive, a district court must still continue to determine the appropriate Guidelines range and then consider the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Rutherford , 599 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 2010). The Guidelines do not mandate concurrent sentences. See United States v. Williamson , 782 F.3d 397, 399 (8th Cir. 2015). And, as the district court noted, the Guidelines are advisory. A sentencing court is required to "consider Guidelines ranges," but is permitted to "tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns." United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 245, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range for both offenses as 720 months. For sentencing on multiple counts of conviction, the Guidelines state:
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2. Here the district court calculated the "total punishment" as 60 years; following the Guidelines, it imposed that sentence. See United States v. Richart , 662 F.3d 1037, 1050 (8th Cir. 2011) ( ).
The district court also adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained the consecutive sentences. Imposing the sentence, it discussed the "seriousness of the offense," the need to "send a message to the larger community" that "the violation of children by felonious sexual behavior will not be tolerated," and the "protection of society." A sentencing court need not provide "a separate statement of reasons" for imposing consecutive sentences. United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Nyah
...682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) ). We presume sentences within the Guidelines range, as here, are reasonable. United States v. Williams , 934 F.3d 804, 809 (8th Cir. 2019). Nyah does not rebut this presumption. Nyah argues the district court did not adequately consider his medical condi......
-
United States v. Rios
...factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Williams , 934 F.3d 804, 808 (8th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). We conclude that Rios's 157-month sentence—a 53-month downward variance from the Guidelines range......
-
United States v. Sorto
...to object at sentencing to the imposition of consecutive prison terms, we review for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 934 F.3d 804, 807 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (standard of review). After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err, much les......
- Brand v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh