United States v. David Williams

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant David Williams was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 . He requested a jury instruction on sentencing entrapment, but the district court declined to give his requested instruction, holding that sentencing entrapment was a question for the sentencing judge, not the jury. Williams then entered a conditional guilty plea in which, inter alia, Williams: (1) pled guilty to a drug trafficking conspiracy involving one hundred kilograms of cocaine; (2) reserved his right to present his sentencing entrapment defense to the district court at sentencing; and (3) reserved his right to appeal the denial of his requested jury instruction. At sentencing, the district court found that Williams had been the victim of sentencing entrapment, justifying a sentence below the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum for a § 841 violation involving five kilograms or more of cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Williams to five years on the § 841 count, for a total sentence of ten years. The government now appeals…

dissenting:

As I see it, Williams’s guilty plea — in which he specifically admitted that his crime involved more than five kilograms of cocaine — triggered the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum without further ado. See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(ii). Since such a sentence is, indeed, mandatory, the parties could not legally stipulate to a procedure allowing the sentencing judge to go below the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Haynes, 216 F.3d 789 , 799 & n. 8 (9th Cir.2000). If Williams wanted to preserve his argument that he had been entrapped as far as the quantity of drugs was concerned, he should not have pled guilty to the drug quantity charged in the indictment. Once he did so, his goose was cooked. See United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724, 780 (9th Cir.2010).

If Williams was misled to enter his plea under the mistaken impression that he could both plead guilty to a crime involving one hundred kilograms of cocaine and also claim sentencing entrapment before the sentencing judge, his remedy would be to withdraw his plea. But that’s not what he seeks to do.

Turning to Williams’s conditional cross appeal of the denial of his requested jury instruction, we have held…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50577

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-03171-IEG-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

DAVID DWIGHT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50578

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-03171-IEG-

v.

DAVID DWIGHT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2012 Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. -2-

Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge.**

Defendant David Williams was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. He requested a jury instruction…