Opinion ID: 4342035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Williams’s Sentencing

Text: After Williams pled guilty, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). Based on the drug quantity, the PSI calculated 5 Case: 17-13503 Date Filed: 11/15/2018 Page: 6 of 20 Williams’s base offense level as 34. The PSI applied a two-level enhancement based on Williams’s role as an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” of the criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The PSI explained that the supervisory role enhancement was warranted because Williams recruited Fluellen to participate in the scheme. After applying an additional two-level enhancement for abusing a position of public trust and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSI found that Williams’s total offense level was 35. The PSI calculated that this total offense level and Williams’s criminal history category of I yielded a recommended range under the Sentencing Guidelines of 168-210 months of imprisonment. The PSI noted that a downward departure or variance could be warranted to avoid sentencing disparities with Williams’s similarly situated codefendants who received sentences significantly below their Guidelines ranges. Before sentencing, Williams objected to, among other things, the PSI’s base offense level and the supervisory role enhancement. Regarding the base offense level, she challenged the quantity of drugs that the PSI attributed to her and asserted that under the correct quantity, her base offense level was 32. The government agreed. Regarding the supervisory role enhancement, Williams argued that, by itself, her recruitment of Fluellen was not a basis for imposing the enhancement and that there was no evidence that she exerted any control, influence, or decision-making 6 Case: 17-13503 Date Filed: 11/15/2018 Page: 7 of 20 authority over the scheme. She also argued that she was entitled to a two-level reduction in her offense level under the Guidelines’ “safety valve” provision. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(17), 5C1.2. But Williams acknowledged that she was eligible for this reduction only if the district court found that she should not receive the two-level supervisory role enhancement. The government argued that the supervisory role enhancement was warranted because Williams recruited Fluellen and Minor to the scheme. The government explained that under binding precedent recruiting an accomplice was sufficient to warrant a role enhancement. At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the PSI’s unobjected-to findings of facts and conclusions of law. The court found that Williams’s base offense level was 32. The district court then considered whether to apply the supervisory role enhancement. To support the enhancement, the government introduced evidence showing that Williams asked Minor to participate in the scheme and connected the CHS with Minor. After considering the parties’ arguments, the court indicated that it was not “completely convinced that it is fair” to apply the enhancement, but that binding precedent required it to apply the enhancement. Doc. 819 at 17.2 The district court stated, “[I]f I were to find that [Williams] was not subject to a role enhancement, I would be reversed.” Id. 2 Citations in the form “Doc. #” refer to numbered entries on the district court’s docket. 7 Case: 17-13503 Date Filed: 11/15/2018 Page: 8 of 20 After considering the other adjustments to Williams’s offense level, the court found that Williams’s total offense level was 33. This offense level combined with her criminal history category of I resulted in a Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months of imprisonment. After hearing arguments and allocution, the court varied downward and sentenced Williams to 61 months’ imprisonment. This is Williams’s appeal.