United States v. Williams ( 2021 )

Case: 19-11287 Document: 00515704228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 12, 2021
No. 19-11287 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Thomas Jefferson Williams, Jr., also known as T-Wills, also
known as Twill,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-187-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Thomas Jefferson Williams, Jr., appeals the 240-month statutory
maximum sentence imposed for his conviction of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing fentanyl. He argues
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11287 Document: 00515704228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2021
No. 19-11287
that the district court committed reversible plain error under U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.2(c)(1) by assessing a criminal history point based on his 2008 Texas
misdemeanor conviction. Plain error review applies because Williams did not
object to the criminal history point in the district court. See United States v.
Nino-Carreon, 910 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 148(2019).
Regardless of whether there was any error that is clear or obvious,
Williams has not satisfied his burden under plain error review because he has
not demonstrated an effect on his substantial rights. See Molina-Martinez v.
United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). Without the criminal history
point, Williams’s criminal history category would have been I instead of II.
In combination with his total offense level of 41, a criminal history category
of I would have corresponded to a guidelines imprisonment range of 324 to
405 months, whereas a criminal history category of II corresponded to a
guidelines imprisonment range of 360 months to life. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt.
5A (Sentencing Table).
However, because the statutory maximum for Williams’s offense was
20 years of imprisonment, his guidelines sentence would have been 240
months of imprisonment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) even if the 2008
conviction had been excluded from his criminal history calculation. See 21
U.S.C. § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). At
sentencing, the district court explicitly recognized that the advisory
guidelines sentence was 240 months of imprisonment. Thus, contrary to
Williams’s argument, the district court did not apply an incorrect guidelines
range. See United States v. Ramos, 739 F.3d 250, 253-54 (5th Cir. 2014).
Additionally, the fact that the district court found it unnecessary to
fully decide whether there was a basis for denying acceptance-of-
responsibility credit under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 shows that the guidelines range
2
Case: 19-11287 Document: 00515704228 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2021
No. 19-11287
produced by Williams’s total offense level and criminal history category
before the application of § 5G1.1(a) was inconsequential and was not the
“beginning point” for the district court’s sentencing decision. Molina-
Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1345 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court’s comments at sentencing show that its selection of the
sentence was not based on an erroneous criminal history score or guidelines
range and instead was driven by the belief that the statutory maximum was
the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez, 931 F.3d
408, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Ramos, 739 F.3d at 253-54.
AFFIRMED.
3