United States v. Williams
| Decision Date | 16 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR. 17-2556 JB,CR. 17-2556 JB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEOTHA WILLIAMS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Leotha Williams' First Set of Objections to the Presentence Report, filed March 16, 2020 (Doc. 198)("First Objections"); and (ii) Defendant Leotha Williams' Second Set of Objections to the Presentence Report, filed March 16, 2020 (Doc. 199)("Second Objections"). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should amend the Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 11, at 8, filed January 6, 2020 (Doc. 184)("PSR"), to omit its characterization of Defendant Leotha Williams' co-Defendant, Adonis Baker, as the most active sex trafficker in Albuquerque, New Mexico; (ii) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 14, at 9, to omit its statement that Baker placed advertisements for trafficked women in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, and Virginia; (iii) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 14, at 9, to omit its reference to Baker's use of a firearm in forcing Jane Doe 2, Williams' victim, to get into a car with Baker and Williams; (iv) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 17, at 9, to omit its description of Baker's abuse of Jane Doe; (v) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 18, at 9, to omit its characterization that girls and women in Williams and his co-Defendants' employment were not free to leave such that Jane Doe 2 had to escape from Williams and his co-Defendants; (vi) whether the Court should amend the PSR ¶ 23, at 10, to omit its characterization that Williams conspired and engaged in an extensive human trafficking organization; (vii) whether the Court can rely on Baker's sale of Jane Doe 7, a sex worker, to Cornelius Galloway in March, 2016, as conduct relevant to Williams' sentence; (viii) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 46, at 13, to omit instances of Baker's sexual abuse of his victims, because there is no evidence that Williams was aware of this abuse; (ix) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 47, at 13, because there is insufficient evidence that Baker held one of victim's children hostage to intimidate the victim to continue working for Baker; (x) whether the Court should amend the PSR's ¶ 50, at 14, because there is insufficient evidence that Baker and Williams took several victims to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to engage in sex work; (xi) whether the Court should apply the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G." or "Guidelines") § 2G1.1, rather than U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1, to Williams' offense, because Williams did not coerce or intimidate the sex workers that Baker employed, but rather persuaded them to continue working; (xii) if U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1 applies, whether Williams abducted Jane Doe 2 such that a 4-level enhancement for abduction under U.S.S.G. §2A3.1(b)(5) applies; (xiii) whether Williams' offense involved physical restraint of Jane Doe 2 such that U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3's 2-level enhancement applies; and (xiv) whether Williams' role was sufficiently minimal that he should receive a 4-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). Williams' primary argument for several of these objections is that he was unaware of and not present for much of Baker's abuse. See First Objections at 2-5. The Court concludes that many -- but not all -- of Baker's acts to whose inclusion in the PSR Williams objects are foreseeably within the scope and in furtherance of Williams' jointly undertaken criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Accordingly, the Court concludes that: (i) Plaintiff United States ofAmerica has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Baker was Albuquerque's most active sex trafficker, so the Court will amend the PSR's ¶ 11, at 8, to omit that characterization, unless the United States presents evidence at the sentencing hearing that supports the PSR's characterization of Baker; (ii) although Baker placed sex-worker advertisements in other states, advertisements beyond New Mexico and Colorado were not within the scope of jointly undertaken conduct in which Williams agreed to assist, and so the Court will amend the PSR's ¶ 14, at 9; (iii) Baker's use of a firearm in directing Jane Doe 2 to get into a vehicle with Baker and Williams was foreseeably in furtherance and in the scope of jointly undertaken criminal activity, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 14, at 9; (iv) the relevance of Baker's abuse does not depend on Williams' knowledge, because that abuse was central to Williams and his co-Defendants' criminal enterprise, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 17, at 9; (v) the United States has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that sex workers in Williams' employ were not free to quit or leave, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 18, at 10; (vi) the United States has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Williams conspired and engaged in an extensive trafficking organization, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 23, at 10; (vii) that Baker sold Jane Doe 7 to another trafficker is illustrative of Williams' offense and so is relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3661; (viii) Baker's sexual abuse of sex workers in the Defendants' employ is relevant to Williams' offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3661, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 46, at 12; (ix) there is sufficient evidence that Baker held one of his victim's children hostage to coerce the victim's subservience, and this incident is relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3661, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 50, at 14; (x) there is sufficient evidence that Baker took several victims to Colorado Springs to engage in sex work, and this conduct is relevant to Williams' offense under 18 U.S.C.§ 3661, so the Court will not amend the PSR's ¶ 50, at 14; (xi) U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1 properly applies to Williams' offense, because, although he pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), his offense conduct involved coercive behavior that § 2A3.1 cross references; (xii) § 2A3.1(b)(5)'s 4-level enhancement applies, because Williams aided and abetted Baker when he forcibly abducted Jane Doe 2, transported her to another state, and forced Jane Doe 2 to engage in sex work; (xiii) Baker forcibly restrained Jane Doe 2, and Williams aided and abetted that restraint, such that § 3A1.3's 2-level enhancement applies; and (xiv) Williams' role in the sex-trafficking enterprise was not supervisory or managerial, but also was not minimal, so a 2-level reduction in Williams' offense level is appropriate. The Court also concludes that the PSR's application of a 4-level enhancement under §2A3.1(b)(1) is proper and does not constitute double counting, but that the PSR improperly applies a 2-level enhancement under § 2A3.1(b)(4), because Williams' victim did not sustain serious bodily injury. Accordingly, the Court sustains in part and overrules in part the First Objections, and sustains in part and overrules in part the Second Objections.
The Court takes its facts from the PSR and the Plea Agreement, filed October 15, 2019 (Doc. 173). Between 2014 and 2017, Baker led a sex trafficking organization in which co-defendant Inkosi Grandberry and Williams assisted. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10. Grandberry and Williams served as Baker's lieutenants, assisting Baker in capturing women and ensuring their continued subservience. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10. Baker typically targeted homeless or drug-addicted girls and women whom he lured into his control by offering drugs and shelter, and whom he then forced into sex work. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10. Baker typically carried a firearm that he made visible to his victims. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10. In at least two instances, Baker picked up women he hadpreviously not met and immediately drove them to other cities and states to engage in sex work. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10. One victim reported being drugged into unconsciousness and waking up in another state. See PSR ¶ 23, at 10.
On January 26, 2018, law enforcement interviewed Jane Doe 7, another woman who had worked for Baker. See PSR ¶ 44, at 13. Tobi Stanfill, another sex worker, introduced Jane Doe 7 to Baker, and Baker later sold Stanfill to Cornelius Galloway, another trafficker. See PSR ¶ 14, at 13. Jane Doe 7 reported that Baker physically attacked other sex workers, including striking Stanfill's head with a wooden chair leg and breaking another worker's leg. See PSR ¶¶ 48-49, at 13. After Baker sold Stanfill, she was murdered. See PSR ¶ 44, at 13. Jane Doe 7 also reported that Baker took photographs of Jane Doe 7, which he posted on Backpage.com as advertisements. See PSR ¶ 45, at 13. Baker forced Jane Doe 7 to work every day and required her to earn $1,500.00 a day. See PSR § 45, at 13. Jane Doe 7 earned $80.00 to $200.00 per "date," but Baker collected all the money that she earned. PSR ¶ 45, at 13. The PSR states that Baker gave Jane Doe 7 drugs and "prevent[ed] her from seeing her infant child" when she refused to work. PSR ¶ 45, at 13.
In July or August, 2016, Baker and Williams approached Jane Doe 2 on Central Avenue in Albuquerque. See PSR ¶ 14, at 9. Baker showed Jane Doe 2 a handgun, and told her to get into Baker's car with him and Williams. See PSR ¶ 14, at 9. Baker told Jane Doe 2 that she had "no choice" but to get inside the car. PSR ¶ 14, at 9. Baker and Williams then drove Jane Doe 2 to a hotel in Colorado Springs, where Baker kept other women who were working for him. See PSR ¶ 14, at 9. During the drive to Colorado Springs, Baker bought Jane Doe 2 lingerie at a Walmart, where Baker took photographs of Jane Doe 2 that he posted to Backpage.com. See PSR ¶ 16, at 9. In Colorado Springs, Baker forced Jane Doe 2 to engage in fifteen to twenty "dates." PSR ¶ 17,at 9. Jane Doe 2 had to give Baker all the money that she earned. See PSR ¶ 17, at 9. On the two or three instances in which Jane Doe 2 did not give Baker money, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial