United States v. Lance Williams ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-1035
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Lance Bradley Williams, also known as Crush, also known as Lil'Crush
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
    ____________
    Submitted: October 4, 2017
    Filed: October 13, 2017
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lance Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a
    child, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (c), 1594(c), and the District Court1 sentenced him to
    1
    The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    120 months in prison. On appeal, in a brief filed in accordance with Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), Williams’s counsel challenges the District Court’s
    application of sentence enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines
    §§ 2G1.3(b)(3) and 4B1.5(b)(1), and Williams echoes the challenge to the latter
    enhancement in a pro se supplemental brief.
    We have reviewed the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing, which
    included testimony that Williams used a cellular telephone to place website
    advertisements soliciting persons to engage in sexual conduct with the minor and
    testimony that Williams facilitated several acts of prostitution involving the minor
    over the course of the conspiracy. We find no error in the application of either
    enhancement. See United States v. Kramer, 
    631 F.3d 900
    , 902 (8th Cir.) (setting
    forth the standard of review and applying Guidelines § 2G1.3(b)(3)), cert. denied, 
    563 U.S. 1039
    (2011); United States v. Rojas, 
    520 F.3d 876
    , 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (applying
    Guidelines § 4B1.5(b)). In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with
    Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues.
    We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1035

Judges: Wollman, Bowman, Colloton

Filed Date: 10/13/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024