Williams Jr v. United States of America
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER as to Adam Tyrale Williams, Jr.: For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the motion 410 is DENIED. The Clerk is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a copy of this order to Defendant (Prisoner # 06718-027), at the Seagoville FCI, Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box. 9000, Seagoville, TX 75159, or to such other more current address that may be on file for the Defendant. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/20/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(jss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADAM TYRALE WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:01-CR-67
(2:05-CV-172)
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Relief
Pursuant to Rule 33, filed by Defendant, Adam Williams, on October
2, 2017 (DE #410).
#410) is
DENIED.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion (DE
The Clerk is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a
copy of this order to Defendant (Prisoner # 06718-027), at the
Seagoville
FCI,
Federal
Correctional
Institution,
Inmate
Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box. 9000, Seagoville, TX 75159, or to such
other more current address that may be on file for the Defendant.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2001, Adam Williams was convicted by a jury
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more
of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 846 and
841(a)(1) (Count One), possession with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of section 841(a)(1)
(Count Two), and possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or
more of crack cocaine, in violation of section 841(a)(1) (Count
Three).
On June 17, 2002, Williams was sentenced to life terms of
imprisonment on each of Counts One and Two, plus another 40 years
of imprisonment on Count Three, all to run concurrently. The
sentence was based on the 2001 edition of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, which assigns a base offense level of 38 to
this offense because the quantity of crack at issue was in excess
of 1.5 kilograms.
Williams received a two point enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous
weapon, a two point enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c)
because Defendant was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor
of less than 5 participants in the commission of the offense, and
a two level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Therefore, Williams’ total offense level was 44,
and with a criminal history category of I, this Court determined
that the appropriate sentencing range was life.
Accordingly,
Williams’ sentence was within the applicable Guideline range.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit,
and his appointed counsel sought to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he was unable to find a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 51(b),
Williams was invited to respond to counsel's motion to withdraw,
but he failed to do so.
In an unpublished order dated November 20,
2
2002, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Williams' appeal as frivolous,
granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and denied Williams' motion
to appoint new counsel.
See United States v. Williams, 51 Fed.
Appx. 589 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2002).
On July 1, 2003, Williams filed a petition for writ of
certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
That request was
denied by the Supreme Court on October 15, 2003.
On November 17, 2004, Petitioner submitted a letter to this
Court, in which he made several substantive arguments. In an order
dated April 1, 2005, this Court gave Williams notice that the
arguments presented in his letter would be treated as a motion made
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 unless Williams advised the
Court on or before April 29, 2005, that he wished to withdraw the
claims set forth in his letter.
The Court also advised Williams
that if he wished to add any other arguments, they should be set
forth
in
a
memorandum,
accompanied
with
citations
to
legal
authority where appropriate, on or before April 29, 2005. Williams
did not advise the Court that he wished to withdraw the claims set
forth in his letter, nor did he submit additional legal argument.
The Court therefore treated Williams' November 17, 2004 letter as
a section 2255 motion.
In his November 17, 2004 letter, Williams contested his
sentence, arguing that certain enhancements were improper and
violated his right to a jury trial, his counsel refused to file a
3
challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000),
and that he had an issue under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). This Court denied his petition because it was barred by the
statute of limitations.
In April of 2009, Williams sought a sentence modification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c) in light of the November 1,
2007 United States Sentencing Guidelines, section 2D1.1(c) “crack”
amendment as applied retroactively by U.S.S.G. section 1B1.10.
Under the November 1, 2007 “crack” amendment, Defendant’s base
offense level was 36, and with everything else remaining equal, his
sentencing range was 360 months to life.
Defendant sought a
reduction below the new guideline range. In an order dated October
26, 2009, this Court considered the section 3553(a) factors,
concluded that a sentence of life was reasonable and appropriate,
and declined to modify Williams’ sentence.
(DE #329.)
Williams
appealed the denial of his request for a sentence modification, and
the appeal was denied by the Seventh Circuit.
See United States v.
Williams, No. 09-3703 (7th Cir. 2010); (DE #338).
In October of 2011, Williams requested a second sentence
modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c) in light of the
November 1, 2010 United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c) “crack” amendment, as applied retroactively by U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10.
In February of 2012, after determining that Williams’
repeated acts of perjury, large-scale drug dealing, possession of
4
a firearm, and assistance as an accomplice after the fact in a
murder, demonstrated that a reduction in Williams’ sentence would
pose a significant risk to the public safety, this Court denied the
motion to reduce his sentence.
(DE #360.)
Williams filed another appeal in February of 2012 regarding
this second denial of his request to reduce his sentence for
distributing crack cocaine. While the appeal was pending, Williams
filed a “Writ of Audita Querela” with this Court (DE #366).
Williams then filed his pro se brief with the Court of Appeals
alleging many of the same issues as raised in the instant motion.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision of November 29, 2012, affirmed the
district court’s decision to not reduce his sentence.
See United
States v. Williams. No. 12-1339 (7th Cir. 2012); (DE #383-1).
Williams filed the instant motion under Rule 33 on October 2,
2017.
(DE #410.)
After receiving an extension of time, the
Government filed a timely response in opposition on November 22,
2017.
(DE #414.)
(DE #415.)
Williams filed a reply on December 12, 2017.
Although Williams claims the Government never opposed
his motion, the Government did file its response on November 22,
2017,
and
certified
that
Seagoville on that day.
it
was
mailed
to
Williams
in
FCI
(DE #414.)
DISCUSSION
Williams makes the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 33.
He claims that he has “newly discovered”
5
evidence, which is a school record from Henry High School, an outof-state school, which impeaches the testimony of a government
witness, Richard Jones.
(DE #410 at 6.)
Specifically, Williams
argues the school document proves that he was not in Hammond,
Indiana, in 1995 and 1996.
Id.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that "[a]ny
motion for a new trial grounded on any reason other than newly
discovered evidence must be filed within 14 days after the verdict
or finding of guilty."
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2).
Williams does claim that his motion for a new trial is based
upon newly discovered evidence, and therefore, is timely.
The
Federal Rules provide that “[a]ny motion for a new trial grounded
on newly discovered evidence must be filed within 3 years after the
verdict or finding of guilty.
If an appeal is pending, the court
may not grant a motion for a new trial until the appellate court
remands the case.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1).
Way more than 3
years have passed since the guilty verdict in this case, and
Williams’ appeal was complete in 2003.
As such, this motion is
untimely.
Even
assuming,
arguendo,
that
the
Court
could
Williams’ motion, he would still fail on the merits.
entertain
A new trial
is warranted only if Williams could prove that the new evidence:
(1) came to his knowledge after trial; (2) could not have been
discovered any sooner using due diligence; (3) is material and not
6
merely impeaching or cumulative; and (4) probably would lead to an
acquittal in the event of a new trial.
315 F.3d 794, 801 (7th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Hodges,
When dealing with whether a
witness testifies falsely, this Court should employ the test set
forth in United States v. Reed, 2 F.3d 1441 (7th Cir. 1993), which
allows a new trial when:
(a) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the
testimony given by a material witness is false.
(b) The jury might have reached a different
conclusion absent the false testimony or if it had
known that testimony by a material witness was
false.
(c) The party seeking the new trial was taken by
surprise when the false testimony was given and was
unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity
until after the trial.
Id. at 1451. Under either test, “mere speculation or conjecture is
insufficient to warrant a new trial.”
Id.
Williams fails to meet the first general test, because his own
school record is not the type of evidence that came to his
knowledge only after trial and could not have been discovered
sooner. Under the false testimony test, Williams has not shown how
this evidence could cause the jury to reach a different result.
Moreover, because Williams knew where and when he was at school,
the witness testimony could not be said to have taken him by
surprise and he was “unable to meet it” or “did not know of its
falsity until after the trial.”
For all of these reasons, the
instant motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 fails.
7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion (DE #410) is
DENIED.
The Clerk is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a copy of this
order to Defendant (Prisoner # 06718-027), at the Seagoville FCI,
Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box.
9000, Seagoville, TX 75159, or to such other more current address
that may be on file for the Defendant.
DATED: December 20, 2017
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?