United States v. Richard William

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4337978-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Heather Quick. [4398626] [15-3297]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3297
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Richard Tommy Williams, also known as Richard T. Williams
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: May 2, 2016
Filed: May 13, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Richard Williams appeals after the district court1 sentenced him to 77 months
in prison and two years of supervised release upon his guilty plea to a felon-in1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-3297

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398626

possession charge. Williams’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and argues in a brief
filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the district court plainly
erred in accepting the plea agreement, because the decision in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), affected Williams’s advisory Guidelines range. In pro
se supplemental filings, Williams also relies upon Johnson to challenge his sentence.
These arguments fail, because the sentence was imposed pursuant to a Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, under which Williams and
the government specifically agreed to a sentence of 77 months. In fact, at the time the
district court accepted the plea agreement, the parties and the court had discussed
Johnson at some length, and the parties still wished to proceed with the Rule
11(c)(1)(C) agreement. See United States v. Kling, 516 F.3d 702, 704-05 (8th Cir.
2008) (defendant waived Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence imposed under
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, which upon acceptance became binding on government,
defendant, and district court).
Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3297

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398626