Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50253/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Omar Demortius Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50253

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR DEMORTIUS WILLIAMS, also known as Omar Williams,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CR-38-1

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Omar Demortius Williams of possession with intent to

distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) within 1,000 feet of a public

school (count one) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (count

two). The district court sentenced Williams to life in prison on count one and

240 months on count two and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. See 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 6, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-50253 Document: 0051997342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2010
No. 09-50253

2

Williams argues that the imposition of a life sentence is cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment. He argues that the gross

disproportionality between his life sentence and the sentences for similar crimes

in this and other jurisdictions makes his life sentence unconstitutional.

Williams asserts that the prior convictions that qualified him for the life

sentence were “relatively minor offenses,” two being state jail felonies and one,

a more serious felony. He asks this court to consider the disparity between crack

cocaine and powder cocaine sentences and argues that a departure based on such

disparity can be reasonable.

Williams’s arguments are foreclosed. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.

957, 994-95 (1991); United States v. Harris, 566 F.3d 422, 436 (5th Cir. 2009),

petition for cert. filed, (Aug. 20, 2009) (No. 09-7385); United States v. Parker, 505

F.3d 323, 330-31 (5th Cir. 2007). Williams’s reliance on Kimbrough v. United

States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) is misplaced. Kimbrough recognized that district

courts remain bound by the statutory minimum sentences in § 841(b)(1).

Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 107.

Accordingly, Williams’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-50253 Document: 0051997342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2010