The Honor able He rman J. W eber , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. Although Williams was rele ased f rom custody

afte r filing her a

ppeal, the c ollatera l 1 conseque nces c arr ied by

a cr iminal c o n v i cti on require that this court not consider he r convic tion moot. See Blanton v. United States , 94 F.3d 227, 233 ( 6th Cir. 1996). Wi lliams’s appea l of her sentenc e is moot a s to he r custodial sentenc e, but not moot a s to he r term of supervised r elea se. See

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0083n.06 F iled: F ebruary 1, 2007 No. 05-5438 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. KEND RA CO OPE R WI L L I AM S, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fore : DAUGHT REY and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and WEBER, District Judge. *

PER C URI AM. Kendr a Willi ams appe als her c onvictions and sent en ce fo r t wo counts of

mon e y la un de ri ng , in vio la tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 19 56 , a nd thr e e c ou nts of the ft of pu

bli c mon e y , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. W illiams was se ntence d to f ifteen months in prison followed by two y ear s of supervised rele ase afte r a jury convicted her for participating in a scheme t o d ef ra u d t he Trea sury whe re b y Kelvin B rown, a

Social Security

Administration (SS A) c laims repre sentative, deposited larg e unauthor ized Social Security pay ments into her bank a ccounts a nd paid her

to return that money

to him. For the following rea sons, we af firm her convictions and sente nce. 1No. 05-5438

U.S. v. W illiams

United States v. Sandles , 469 F .3 d 5 08 , 5 18 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Un ite d S tat es v . Le wis , 166 F. App’ x 19 3, 19 4- 95 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . We wi ll thu s c on sid e r b oth of he r c ha lle ng e s. - 2 - Wil liams first challeng es the district cour t’s ref usal to suppress her co n fession as involuntarily

obtained. We re view the district co u rt ’s factual finding s for c lear err or and its leg al conclusions de novo. Un ite d S tat es v . M on tgo me ry , 377 F.3d 582, 585 (6th Cir. 2004). After thr ee meeting s with an SSA investigator at wh i ch Wil liams was enc ourag ed to coope rate , she admitted to p a rti c ip a ti n g in B r o w n ’ s s c h e me b u t c la im e d s h e r e tu r n e d th e mo n e y to h im o n ly b e c a u s e she tho ug ht B ro wn mis take nly de po sit e d it int o he r a c c ount. She the n s ig ne d a state me nt t o th a t e ff

e c t. We w ill find a confe ssion involunt ary if objectively

coer cive police activity

overbor e the de fenda

nt’s will and that coer cion was the cruc ial fac tor motivating the defe ndant to confe ss. United States v. Ostrander , 4 11 F .3 d 6 84 , 69 6 (6 th Cir . 2 00 5) . A lth ou g h Wil liams p oin ts t o s e ve ra l st a te me nts to show that she thoug ht she would not be prose cuted, she points to no action by investigators that was objectively

coer cive. The district court nee d not have suppre ssed her confe ssion.

Willi a ms n e xt arg ue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y g ra nti ng the g ov e rn me nt’ s mo tio n to exclude, under F ed. R. Evid. 403, psy cholog ical evidenc e of her diminis hed ca

pacity . We review evidentiar y ruling s under Rule 403 for ab u s e of discre tion, and that discretion is “ve ry broad.” Un ited States v. Caver , 4 7 0 F

. 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 4 0 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e p r o f f e r e d e v id e n c e , testimony by Willi a ms’ s e xpe rt , w a s o nly re le va nt t o s ho w t

hat Will ia ms l a c ke d th e speci fic int e nt r e qu ir e d to p r o v e th e me n s r e a e le me n ts o f th e o f f e n s e s w it h w h ic h s h e w a s char g ed. See Uni ted States v. Kimes , 246 F.3d 800, 806 ( 6th Cir. 2001). At the end of the suppression hear ing, the district courtNo. 05-5438

U.S. v. W illiams

- 3 - asked he r expert if he thought W illiams could form the i ntent nece ssary to commit a cr ime, to which he a ns we re d, “ Ye s, Yo ur Ho no r. ” B e c a us e he r expe rt ’s pr op os e d tri a l te sti mony c ou ld n ot n e g a te

s p e c i f i c i n t e n t( l e n d i n g i tl i t t l e t o n o p r o b a t i v e v a l u e ) , a n d b e c a u s e i t w o u l d

l i k e l y m i s l e a d

t h e j u r y, the dis tr ic t c ourt

a c te d w ith in i ts “ ve ry

br oa d” Rul e 40 3 d isc re tio n b y e xclu din g it.

Wil liams last challeng es the district cour t’s denial of he r motion for a dow nwar d depar ture for diminished ca

pacity pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, a cur ious request c onsidering she wa s sentenc ed af

ter Booke r v. United States , 5 4 3 U

. S. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , ma d e th e G u id e li n e s a d v is o r y . We revie w a district cour

t’s d en i al o f a request for a dow nwar d depar ture only if the district court b e li e v e d it la c k e d th e a

u th o r ity to depar t. Un ite d S

tat es v . P uc k

e tt , 422 F.3d 340, 345 ( 6th Cir. 2005). As the r ecor d shows that the district court wa s clea rly awa re of its authority

to depar t, we decline to r eview its dec ision not t o do so.

We thus affirm Willi ams’s convic tions and sentence

.