Williams v. United States
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-01177-JDB-jay |
| Decision Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Parties | DOMINIC WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Petitioner,[1] Dominic Williams, has filed a pro se amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (the “Amended Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255, as well as an additional claim (the “Supplemental Claim” or “Taylor Claim”). [2] For the following reasons, the Amended Petition and the Supplemental Claim are DENIED.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d)-(e) (emphasis added). The indictment also charged the Defendant with discharging a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 3).
Attorney David Camp was appointed to represent Williams. (Id., D.E. 38.)
The charges were based on the following offense conduct:
United States v. Williams, 737 Fed.Appx. 235, 236 (6th Cir. 2018). The Defendant fled but was captured by law enforcement officers the same day. Id.
On August 10, 2016, Williams pleaded guilty to all three counts pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government. (No. 1:15-cr-10015-JDB-1, D.E. 54, 55.) In anticipation of sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence report (the “PSR”). (Id., D.E. 68.) The PSR calculated the Defendant's advisory incarceration range as 444 to 525 months, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual (the “Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”). (Id., D.E. 68 at ¶ 92.) The range was arrived at, in part, through the application of a cross-reference for the Defendant's having “used the firearm cited in the offense of conviction to commit the offense of Assault with Attempt to Commit Murder; Attempted Murder of” the victim, enhancement of the offense level “since the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury,” and a determination that Williams was a “career offender.” (Id., D.E. 68 at ¶¶ 31, 32, 38, 92.) The PSR advised that the Defendant was a career offender because the offenses to which he pleaded guilty were committed subsequent to his sustaining at least two felony convictions for either a controlled substance offense or a crime of violence. (Id., D.E. 68 at ¶ 38 (citing U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1).)
Defense counsel subsequently filed a position paper in response to the PSR. (Id., D.E. 69.) He presented numerous challenges to the contents of that document, including that “[t]here has been no evidence provided to support [the] statement that [the victim] sustained ‘permanent or life threatening bodily injury,'” and that the cross-reference was improper because “the reference to assault with attempt to commit murder is not an identifiable criminal charge under the laws of the State of Tennessee ....” (Id., D.E. 69 at ¶¶ 10, 11.) In a second addendum to the PSR, the probation office amended the PSR in some respects in response to counsel's objections. (Id., D.E. 70.) As to counsel's challenge to the enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injuries and the cross-reference for attempted first degree murder, the addendum advised that the record supported application of those provisions.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel reiterated most of his objections to the PSR's findings. (Id., D.E. 77 at PageID 189-201.) In particular, he argued at length that the crossreference did not apply because the Defendant accidentally shot the victim and did not say to her that he would kill her. Counsel further argued that there was insufficient proof that the victim suffered permanent or life-threatening injuries. The Government called the victim as a witness to provide an impact statement and to testify in support of the enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injuries and the cross-reference for attempted first degree murder. (Id., D.E. 77 at PageID 224-40.) After hearing the testimony, the parties' arguments, and the Defendant's statement to the Court, the undersigned held that the enhancement and the cross-reference applied and that the Defendant was a career offender. The undersigned applied a three-point reduction in offense level for Williams' acceptance of responsibility and found that the resulting Guidelines' imprisonment range was 444 to 525 months. Upon consideration of the advisory range and the § 3553 sentencing factors,[4] the undersigned sentenced Williams to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 324 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 3. A term of 120 months on Count 2, to be served consecutively to Counts 1 and 3, was also imposed. (Id., D.E. 77 at PageID 269.) The effective sentence was 444 months' imprisonment, which was at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Five years of supervised release was ordered. (Id., D.E. 77 at PageID 270.)
Counsel continued his representation of Williams on appeal (the “First Appeal”). He “challenge[d] the . . . application of a four-level enhancement to the Guidelines calculation for causing ‘permanent or life-threatening bodily injury' in the shooting victim.” Williams, 737 Fed.Appx. at 238. Counsel argued, in part, that the enhancement should not have been applied “without ‘expert opinion establishing a foundation as to causation, diagnosis, prognosis or permanency.'” Id. Relying on Dean v. United States, 581 U.S. 62 (2017), counsel further contended that this Court “erred by failing to take into account the mandatory consecutive ‘additional' sentence for Count 2 under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when determining the sentences for Counts 1 and 3.” Id. at 241.
The Sixth Circuit rejected the first argument, holding that the Government was not required to present expert medical opinion and that this Court properly considered the victim's testimony as to the nature and extent of her injuries. Id. at 238-41. It therefore affirmed “the application of the ‘life-threatening injury' guideline enhancement[.]” Id. at 243. The court agreed with the Defendant, however, on his Dean argument. Id. at 241-43. The case was therefore remanded “for resentencing in light of Dean.” Id. at 243.
Upon remand, the undersigned “addressed Dean and reconsidered Williams's sentence.” (No. 1:15-cr-10015-JDB-1, D.E. 95 at PageID 383.) Upon finding “that the sentence previously imposed was the ‘appropriate and correct sentence,'” the undersigned resentenced the Defendant to the same bottom-of-the-Guidelines total term of imprisonment of 444 months. (Id., D.E. 95 at PageID 383; id., D.E. 89.)
Attorney Camp appealed on Williams' behalf once again (the “Second Appeal”), “argu[ing] that the district court erred at resentencing by failing to properly consider the ruling in Dean.” (Id., D.E. 95 at PageID 383.) After briefing was completed but before the Sixth Circuit issued a decision, counsel “filed a letter requesting additional briefing to argue that [the] § 924(c) conviction is no longer valid” in light of the Supreme Court's June 24, 2019, decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). (Id.) In an opinion dated September 5, 2019, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Defendant's Dean argument. (Id., D.E. 95 at PageID 383-87.) The court also denied the Defendant's “request for additional briefing in light of Davis,” finding that the “decision in Davis does not affect [his] appeal.” (Id., D.E. 95 at PageID 387.)
To continue reading
Request your trial