Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04020/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael Vernell Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL VERNELL WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00198-1)

Submitted: May 7, 2008 Decided: May 19, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Michael Frazier, FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C., Huntington, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States

Attorney, J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 1 of 6
*In his plea agreement, Williams waived his right to appeal

the reasonableness of his sentence as long as it was within the

guideline range established at sentencing, but reserved the right

to appeal the calculation of the guideline range.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Vernell Williams pled guilty to possession of

five grams or more of cocaine base (crack) with intent to

distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) (Count One), and carrying

a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007) (Count Two). He

received a sentence of eighty-four months imprisonment. Williams

appeals his sentence,* arguing that the district court clearly

erred in giving him an adjustment for reckless endangerment during

flight, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3C1.2 (2006).

He also contends that the adjustment resulted in impermissble

double counting because it was imposed in conjunction with his

sentence for the § 924(c) offense. We agree that § 3C1.2 applied

and affirm the sentence.

On November 4, 2003, two police officers in Huntington,

West Virginia, stopped the vehicle Williams was driving because it

matched the description of a vehicle they were looking for in

connection with a murder. Williams got out of the car as

requested, but when the officers attempted to pat him down for

weapons, he resisted. A struggle followed, during which the

officers found a pistol in Williams’ waistband. Williams was

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 2 of 6
- 3 -

subdued and placed on the ground. He was carrying 11.01 grams of

crack and $1003 in cash. 

In calculating Williams’ offense level for the drug

count, the probation officer did not include a two-level

enhancement for possession of a weapon during the drug offense

because of Williams’ § 924(c) conviction. See USSG § 2K2.4,

comment. (n.4). However, the probation officer recommended a twolevel adjustment under USSG § 3C1.2 for recklessly creating a

substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another

person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.

This enhancement was based on Williams’ brief struggle with the

officers while he was armed with the pistol. Williams contested

the § 3C1.2 adjustment, arguing that he had simply failed to be

cooperative. He also argued that, because he had been convicted of

possession of a gun during a drug trafficking crime, the § 3C1.2

adjustment amounted to double counting. At the sentencing hearing

in November 2007, the district court overruled Williams’ objection

to the § 3C1.2 adjustment. Williams did not raise the double

counting claim he had set out in his written objections, and the

district court did not address it. 

On appeal, Williams first argues that the § 3C1.2

adjustment was not warranted by the facts. The district court’s

determination of the facts is reviewed for clear error; its

decision that an adjustment applies is reviewed de novo. United

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 3 of 6
- 4 -

States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). Guideline

section 3C1.2 provides: “If the defendant recklessly created a

substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another

person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer,

increase by 2 levels.” The term “during flight” encompasses

“preparation for flight” and includes conduct that “occurs in the

course of resisting arrest.” USSG § 3C1.2, comment. (n.3).

Williams contends that the district court applied the

adjustment merely because he was carrying a firearm. Although

Williams was not technically resisting arrest when he struggled

with the officers, he was anticipating the arrest that he knew

would occur if he were found to be carrying a gun together with

eleven grams of crack and $1003 in cash. 

Both the plain language of the guideline and case law

mandate application of the adjustment when the defendant is

resisting arrest and his conduct creates a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury, even though no injury results. See, e.g.,

United States v. Jimenez, 323 F.3d 320, 323-24 (5th Cir. 2003);

United States v. Thomas, 294 F.3d 899, 906-07 (7th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Williams, 254 F.3d 44, 47-48 (2d Cir. 2001). A

struggle in which all the parties are armed carries an obvious risk

that the struggle might escalate to the point that a firearm is

used, or discharges accidentally. We conclude that the district

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 4 of 6
- 5 -

court did not clearly err in finding that Williams’ conduct created

such a risk. 

Next, Williams contends that, because the § 3C1.2

adjustment was imposed with his sentence for the § 924(c) offense,

it constituted impermissible double counting. Because Williams

failed to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing, the plain

error standard of review applies. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 732-37 (1993).

Double-counting is permitted under the guidelines

“[u]nless a guideline provision expressly prohibits consideration

of a factor previously used in applying another guideline section.”

United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 505 (4th Cir. 1996).

Application Note 1 to § 3C1.2 states that the adjustment should not

be applied “where the offense guideline in Chapter Two, or another

adjustment in Chapter Three, results in an equivalent or greater

increase in offense level solely on the basis of the same conduct.”

This commentary does not preclude application of the adjustment

Williams received, which was based on conduct separate from

Williams’ possession of the gun--his resistance and struggle with

the armed policemen while armed himself. We are satisfied that no

error occurred

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 5 of 6
- 6 -

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-4020 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/19/2008 Pg: 6 of 6