United States v. Jody Williams

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0659n.06
FILED
No. 11-1599
Jun 21, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
JODY MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge; COHN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Jody Michael Williams appeals his sentence. Following our review, we
affirm.
In December 2010, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court set
his sentencing hearing for March 2011. Two weeks before he was scheduled to be sentenced,
Williams moved to continue the hearing until two co-conspirators entered their anticipated guilty
pleas. Williams argued that postponing the hearing would provide the court with additional
information concerning his role in the conspiracy and relative level of culpability. The district court
denied the motion, concluding that Williams failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance.
*
The Honorable Avern Cohn, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
No. 11-1599
United States v. Williams
At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined that Williams’s total offense level
was 27, which included a two-level increase under USSG § 3B1.1(c) for his role in the offense, and
that his criminal history category was IV, resulting in a guidelines range of imprisonment of 100 to
125 months. The district court sentenced Williams to 100 months in prison. On appeal, Williams
asserts three claims of error: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to
continue the sentencing hearing; (2) the district court erred by denying his request for a downward
departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b)(1) on the basis that his criminal history category overrepresented
the seriousness of his criminal history and his likelihood to recidivate; and (3) the district court erred
by denying his request for a downward variance on the basis that marijuana should no longer be
classified as a Schedule I drug, and the court failed to adequately explain its decision to deny the
variance.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to continue a sentencing hearing for an abuse
of discretion. United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 298 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Robbins,
197 F.3d 829, 847 (7th Cir. 1999). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Williams’s motion to continue the sentencing hearing because Williams failed to demonstrate that
postponing the hearing was likely to result in the discovery of additional information that was
necessary to impose a proper sentence. The presentence report contained detailed information
regarding the actions of the conspirators, including Williams’s role in retrieving drug shipments and
directing other individuals concerning the shipment of drugs and drug proceeds. Further, despite the
denial of the continuance, defense counsel was able to discuss in detail at the sentencing hearing the
role of each individual in the conspiracy and Williams’s relative level of culpability.
-2-
No. 11-1599
United States v. Williams
We cannot review the district court’s denial of a request to depart downward under
§ 4A1.3(b)(1) unless there is clear evidence demonstrating that the court misunderstood its discretion
to depart from the guidelines. See United States v. Santillana, 540 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2008).
There is no such evidence here. The court considered Williams’s request for a downward departure,
but denied it, accepting the government’s argument that Williams’s criminal history category did not
substantially overrepresent the seriousness of his criminal history or his likelihood to recidivate. See
United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990, 999 (6th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s request for a
downward variance. See United States v. Massey, 663 F.3d 852, 856-57 (6th Cir. 2011). The court
adequately explained that its decision to reject the request was based on the fact that marijuana is a
gateway drug that leads to more serious drug use, and the rejection was reasonable, given that
marijuana remains a Schedule I drug. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 15 & n.23 (2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
-3-