United States v. Quinton Williams

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Quinton Williams appeals from his sentence following a jury trial and guilty verdict. The parties are presumed to be familiar with the facts, and we do not recount them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

I. Appellant’s sentence after re-trial

We review claims of judicial vindictiveness de novo. United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir.2003), overruled on different grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir.2010).

Where the defendant cannot show a reasonable likelihood that his harsher sentence at a retrial was the result of vindictiveness, the Pearce presumption does not apply and the defendant bears the burden of proving actual vindictiveness. Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559, 569 , 104 S.Ct. 3217 , 82 L.Ed.2d 424 (1984).

The court in this case stated affirmatively on the record its reasons for giving Williams a higher sentence after retrial, noting that guideline recommendation in the 2003 Presentence Report did not include the career offender application. When an increase in sentence results solely from the court’s correction of…