Opinion ID: 588632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Williams' Sentence

Text: 30 Williams contends the district court should have decreased his offense level under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3B1.2(a) (minimal participant) or under § 3B1.2(b) (minor participant). We review the district court's findings for clear error. United States v. Miller, 891 F.2d 1265, 1270-71 (7th Cir.1989). Williams has the burden of showing mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Brick, 905 F.2d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir.1990). 31 The district court found that appellants were approximately equally culpable co-venturers. Williams did not present any evidence of mitigating factors. He argues that he was only the driver and points out that the car and weapons belonged to Clarke and that additional evidence was seized from Clarke's residence. These factors, taken together with the evidence in the record of Williams' participation, do not add up to a preponderance of evidence showing that Williams was a minor or a minimal participant. We find no error. 32 Next Williams contends the district court erred by increasing his criminal history score by two points for two prior diversionary dispositions under state law that resulted in two terms of supervision. The district court added one point for each diversionary disposition pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c). 33 The treatment of diversionary dispositions for the purposes of a defendant's criminal history score is addressed directly in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(f). That section directs the sentencing judge to treat each diversionary disposition as a sentence under § 4A1.1(c) unless it results from juvenile court or is a diversion from judicial process without a finding of guilt. Neither of Williams' prior offenses were juvenile offenses and both involved a finding of guilt. We find that the district court did not err by adding criminal history points. 34 Finally, Williams contends the district court erred by failing to provide particular reasons for departing from the guidelines and for the specific sentence imposed. U.S. v. Ferra, 900 F.2d 1057, 1061-64 (7th Cir.1990). The record is clear that the district court did not depart from the guidelines in Williams' case. In fact, the district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the appropriate guideline range. We are satisfied that the record reflects an adequate statement of reasons for the specific sentence imposed.