Williamson v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 April 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 3:16-cv-00075,3:16-cv-00075
• Parties: RONDARIUS WILLIAMSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

RONDARIUS WILLIAMSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

NO. 3:16-cv-00075

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

April 16, 2021

JUDGE CAMPBELL

MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Second Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 84); the Government's Response (Doc. No. 85); Petitioner's Reply (Doc. No. 88); Petitioner's Notice of Related Cases (Doc. No. 89); the Government's Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 92); Petitioner's Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 95); and the Government's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 96).

For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner's Second Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 84) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISS

II. PETITIONER'S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner was indicted, along with over 30 other gang-member defendants, on drug, gun, and racketeering charges. (Doc. No. 2066, at 4-5, in Criminal Case No. 3:10-cr-00163);¹ United States v. Keairus Wilson & Rondarius Williamson, 579 Fed. Appx. 338, 342 (6th Cir. 2014). Mostof the defendants entered plea agreements, but Petitioner and Co-Defendant Keairus Wilson elected to go to trial. Id. After a multi-week jury trial before Judge Aleta A. Trauger, Petitioner was convicted of the following offenses: conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity involving the murder of Andreus Taylor on May 18, 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")) (Count One); using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (assault with a dangerous weapon) on February 9, 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Ten); murder of Andreus Taylor in aid of racketeering on May 18, 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) (the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering ("VICAR") statute) (Count Eleven); using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (murder of Andreus Taylor on May 18, 2009), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Twelve); murder resulting from using or carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (murder of Andreus Taylor on May 18, 2009), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (Count Thirteen); using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (robbery and carjacking on October 31, 2009), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Fifteen); and conspiracy to use or carry firearms during and in relation to crimes of violence (conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, murder in aid of racketeering, and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (Count Twenty-Seven). (Crim. Doc. Nos. 1147, 1496, 1505).

The Sixth Circuit summarized the evidence adduced at trial relating to Petitioner, as follows:

The Bloods are a street gang formed in Los Angeles during the 1970s. They have a longstanding rivalry with another gang called the Crips. The Eastside Skyline Pirus and the Treetop Pirus are both affiliates of the Bloods with local outfits in Nashville, Tennessee. The two Piru gangs sometimes collaborated andoperated in similar fashion.

To become a member of either gang, one first had to be 'beat in' - which involved existing members beating up aspiring members. Each gang had a hierarchy: A new member started out as a Tiny Gangster, and could advance in rank to Baby Gangster, Young Gangster, Young Original Gangster, Original Gangster, and, in some exceptional cases, double or triple 'OG.' A member advanced by 'putting in work' - that is, by 'fighting, shooting, basically being into it with the opposition, opposition meaning [C]rips.' Lower-ranked members had a 'Big Homie' - a mentor of sorts - higher in rank.

Each gang held regular meetings and had extensive rules. For instance, if an Original Gangster says 'go across the street and shoot this person, you need to do it.' And if a Crip 'disrespects' a member, then 'handle your business' - meaning 'assault them or possibly shoot them[,]' since '[i]t would be considered weak' not to. If a member violated the rules, he faced a 'trial and jury' of the gang's other members. By a majority vote, those members could kick him out of the gang. Or they could merely punish him. For example, one member, known as Jo-Jo, disrespected his Big Homie; other members took Jo-Jo out to a field, formed a circle around him, and beat him. By the end, Jo-Jo 'couldn't stand up' and 'was coughing up blood.'

* * *

Rondarius 'Killa' Williamson was a member of the Treetop Pirus. In May 2009, he attended Maplewood High School's graduation ceremony at the Gentry Center, on the campus of Tennessee State University. The Gentry Center is a basketball arena with two levels of bleachers and a capacity exceeding 10,500. Williamson went to the ceremony with a few friends, including fellow gang member Terrence Jones. They went to the upper level and were joined later by two more gang members, Adrian Montgomery and Anthony 'Doo Daddy' Lampkins. The group remained in the upper level, watching the ceremony and 'chilling[.]' As the ceremony ended, people made their way to the exits. Persons in the upper level had to walk down stairs to reach the exits on the lower level. One stairwell led to a foyer with two exits about ten yards apart - one on the west side, one on the east side. The bottom of the stairwell was adjacent to the doors on the west side. Someone walked down those stairs, pulled out a gun, and shot towards the doors on the west side. The bullets hit a Gangster Disciple Crip named Andreus Taylor. Taylor tried to run away from the Gentry Center, but stumbled down a nearby hill. He died later that day.

(Crim. Doc. No. 2066, at 1-4).

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Trauger imposed the following sentence:

• Count One (RICO conspiracy) - life, concurrent with Counts Eleven, Thirteen, and Twenty-Seven;

• Count Ten (Section 924(c) - linked to assault on February 9, 2009) - 120 months, consecutive to all other counts;

• Count Eleven (VICAR Murder) - life, concurrent with Counts One, Thirteen, and Twenty-Seven;

• Count Twelve (Section 924(c) - linked to murder of Andreus Taylor) - 300 months, consecutive to all other counts;

• Count Thirteen (Section 924(j) - murder of Andreus Taylor resulting from use of firearm) - life, concurrent with Counts One, Eleven, and Twenty-Seven;

• Count Fifteen (Section 924(c) - linked to robbery and carjacking on October 31, 2009) - 300 months, consecutive to all other counts;

• Count Twenty-Seven (Section 924(o) - conspiracy to use or carry firearms) - 240 months, concurrent with Counts One, Eleven, and Thirteen.

(Crim. Doc. Nos. 1884, 1885).

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit rejected Petitioner's arguments based on insufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and other alleged errors. (Crim. Doc. No. 2066). The Supreme Court subsequently denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari. (Crim. Doc. Nos. 2123, 2131).

Petitioner filed the original motion to vacate in this case on January 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 1). Judge Trauger denied all Petitioner's claims in a Memorandum and Order issued on June 23, 2017, except Petitioner's claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the plea-bargaining process. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42). Judge Trauger ordered the Government to present proof on that issue in the form of a declaration of defense counsel. (Id.) The case was subsequently transferred to the undersigned Judge. (Doc. No. 61). This Court thereafter considered the parties'filings on the plea-bargaining issue, and ruled that Petitioner had not established trial counsel was ineffective in that regard. (Doc. Nos. 66, 67).

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), holding the "residual clause" definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Some time later, on March 25, 2020, the Sixth Circuit granted Petitioner's request to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255 based on Davis. (Doc. No. 74). Petitioner has now filed his Second Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 84), in which he challenges Count Twelve (violation of Section 924(c) - linked to murder of Andreus Taylor), as well as Count Twenty-Seven (Section 924(o) conspiracy to use or carry firearms). The issues have been fully briefed and the case is now ripe for decision.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Section 2255 Proceedings

Petitioner has brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 provides a statutory mechanism for challenging the imposition of a federal sentence:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In order to obtain relief under Section 2255, a petitioner "'must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict.'" Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855,858 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003)).

If a factual dispute arises in a Section 2255 proceeding, the court is to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute. Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir. 2013). An evidentiary hearing is not required, however, if the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Ray, 721 F.3d at 761; Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6^th Cir. 1999). A hearing is also...