Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60277/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rahim Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60277

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAHIM WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:17-CR-13-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rahim Williams appeals the 120-month, guidelines sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending 

that the district court committed procedural error by applying the first degree 

murder cross-reference through U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B). Williams argues 

that the testimony adduced at the sentencing hearing failed to sufficiently 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
No. 19-60277

2

establish that he used the gun in question to shoot and kill Stephanie Mejia 

three days prior to his arrest. 

In light of forensic evidence linking the gun recovered from Williams to 

Mejia’s murder, evidence placing Williams in the vicinity of Mejia’s murder at 

the relevant time, and the recorded police statement of Mercedez McCarty, 

Williams’s ex-girlfriend, detailing his admission to shooting and killing Mejia, 

the district court’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence established

Williams’s guilt is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States 

v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 229 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 

699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). While Williams points to his and his sister’s alibi 

testimony as well as McCarty’s testimony that her inculpatory police 

statement was coerced, the court found all three witnesses’ courtroom 

testimony wholly lacking in credibility, and “[w]e will not second guess the 

district court’s factual findings as to the credibility of witnesses.” United States 

v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997). In any event, “[w]here there are 

two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them 

cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 560 (5th 

Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United 

States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (rejecting 

“equipoise rule” in criminal cases addressing guilt or innocence (and, thus, 

having a higher burden than at sentencing)).

Williams fails to show error in applying the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) crossreference in this case. See United States v. Carey, 589 F.3d 187, 196 (5th Cir. 

2009). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020