Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01411/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
James E. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1411

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

James E. Williams, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2009

Filed: January 8, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge. 

James E. Williams (Williams) appeals the sentence he received after he pled

guilty to making a threatening telephone communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 875(c). Williams claims the district court1

 erred in imposing a two-level sentencing

enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines)

§ 3B1.4 for use of a minor in the commission of the offense. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332
2

Williams initially received a sentence of 84 months imprisonment. Williams’s

sentence was reduced to 70 months imprisonment as a result of the crack cocaine

amendments to the Guidelines. 

-2-

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2008, Williams was an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton,

South Dakota, serving a 70-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute

cocaine base.2

 Williams’s wife resided in Missouri. Williams became frustrated when

his wife cut off contact with him and he could not reach her to make plans for an

upcoming furlough. On June 12, 2008, Williams left two threatening messages on his

wife’s voicemail. Prison employees monitored Williams’s telephone calls and

recorded the messages on the prison phone system.

In order to reach his wife’s voicemail, Williams placed a call to his mother and

requested that she make a three-way call to the cellular phone of Williams’s wife.

Williams’s mother summoned Williams’s 16 year-old niece and told the niece to talk

with Williams. Williams gave his niece a phone number and instructed her to call the

number. When the first number failed to reach his wife, Williams gave his niece a

second number to dial. Williams directed his niece to let the answering service pick

up the call, and when prompted, Williams instructed his niece to press “1” so he could

leave a message. In the message, Williams threatened his wife that if she planned to

“run off and leave” Williams, no one in her family would “be able to protect” her from

Williams. Williams then instructed his niece to hang up the connection with his wife

and said, “I’m going to kill that bitch.”

Williams asked to speak to his mother. Williams talked to his mother, and

then told his mother to put his niece back on the phone. Williams directed his

niece to dial his wife’s number again, and Williams left a second voicemail on his

wife’s phone, declaring:

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332
-3-

Yeah, I’m going to kill your m_____-f______ ass. . . . I’m going to

kill you and your m_____-f______ family just as soon as I get up out

of this m_____-f_____. I’m going to kill you, your family, your

daughter, your son, your uncle, your daddy, your mom. I’m killing all

of you m_____-f_____s. 

The niece disconnected at Williams’s direction.

A federal grand jury charged Williams with two counts of making a

threatening telephone communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Section

875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any

communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure

the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

five years, or both.” Williams pled guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and Count

2 was dismissed on the government’s motion. 

 A presentence investigation report (PSR) prepared for Williams

recommended a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4. 

Section 3B1.4 instructs, “If the defendant used or attempted to use a person less

than eighteen years of age to commit the offense or assist in avoiding detection of,

or apprehension for, the offense, increase by 2 levels.” Williams objected to this

portion of the PSR and denied he used a minor to commit the offense. 

On February 5, 2009, the district court sentenced Williams. The district

court considered Williams’s objection to the sentencing enhancement for use of a

minor in the commission of the offense. Williams’s counsel argued Williams “did

not intend to use the minor, she just happened to be there.” The district court

overruled Williams’s objection, stating:

[I]t is pretty clear to me that the 16 year old niece was used by the

defendant to assist him in committing the offense. She is the one that

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332
-4-

dialed the number at his direction, he specifically told her what

number to dial, told her to hang up the call, told her to dial the number

again, told her to hang up the phone call, directed her to dial a number

again, told her to click it off and call again. When there was a

message on the phone he specifically told the niece to press 1, told her

to hang up the phone. At one point, he specifically asked his mother

to put his niece on the telephone, and then gave her all of these

directions on what she should do. I think that squarely falls under

Section 3B1.4, because he used a person under the age of 18 to

commit the crime. 

With the addition of the two-level enhancement for use of a minor,

Williams’s total offense level was 12, and his criminal history category was IV,

resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months imprisonment. The

district court sentenced Williams to 21 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release. 

II. DISCUSSION

“We review the district court’s construction and application of the

sentencing guidelines de novo, and we review its factual findings regarding

enhancements for clear error.” United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir.

2009).

Williams contends the district court erred in imposing the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4

enhancement for two reasons. First, Williams argues it was his mother, not

Williams, who requested Williams’s niece to assist Williams in placing the phone

calls. Second, because Count 2 of the indictment was dismissed, Williams insists

the district court erroneously relied upon conduct which occurred after the

completion of the first call to find Williams used his minor niece to commit the

offense. 

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332
-5-

In making his first argument that § 3B1.4 does not apply, Williams focuses

solely on the fact that Williams did not himself recruit his niece to participate in

making the phone call. Williams fails to recognize that the term “use” is not

limited to active recruitment of a minor to participate in an offense. Application

Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 states: “‘Used or attempted to use’ includes directing,

commanding, encouraging, intimidating, counseling, training, procuring,

recruiting, or soliciting.” (emphasis added). Although Williams’s mother initially

requested Williams’s niece get on the phone, Williams then assumed control, and

gave his niece explicit directions and commands, including which numbers to dial,

how to place the calls, and when to hang up. Williams affirmatively incorporated

his minor niece into the commission of his crime. We conclude Williams’s

conduct does squarely fall under § 3B1.4’s definition of “use,” and the district

court did not err in imposing the two-level enhancement.

Williams next objects to the district court’s reliance on conduct which

occurred after the termination of the first call. While Williams objected to the

imposition of a § 3B1.4 enhancement, he did not raise any objection to the district

court’s reference to the second phone call. “Procedural sentencing errors are

forfeited, and therefore may be reviewed only for plain error, if the defendant fails

to object in the district court.” United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 946 (8th

Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The reason we review for plain error under these

circumstances is because, without an objection at sentencing, “the district court had

no opportunity to clarify its comments or to correct any potential error in the first

instance.” United States v. M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129

S. Ct. 171 (2008). “Under plain error review, the defendant must show: (1) an

error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v.

Moore, 565 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Phelps, 536

F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 2008)). We conclude the district court did not commit

plain error because, as we stated above, Williams’s conduct during the first phone

call was sufficient to warrant the § 3B1.4 enhancement.

 

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332
-6-

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1411 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622332