IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-00131-01-CR-W-FJG

CARLIN Q. WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is submitted in response to defendants sentencing memorandum for
the Courts review in advance of the sentencing hearing scheduled for Thursday, May 8, 2014, at
10:00 a.m., before United States District Court Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. As explained in
detail below, the Government recommends that the Court impose a prison sentence at or above
the high-end of the sentencing guideline range of 92 to 115 months imprisonment.

The

Government requests that the Court order the defendant to serve a three-year period of
supervised release following his sentence of imprisonment. The Government further requests the
Court enter a mandatory order requiring payment of $100 in special assessment.
II. SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS
A.

Advisory Sentencing Guideline Calculation

The calculated guideline range contained in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR)

resulted in a Total Offense Level of 23. (PSR 8-17.) It was determined that the defendant had
23 criminal history points, thus his Criminal History Category is a VI. (PSR 33-35.) Based
upon a Total Offense Level of 23 and a Criminal History Category VI, the defendants guideline

Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 8

sentencing range is 92 to 115 months imprisonment. (PSR 60.) The parties do not object to
the calculated guideline sentencing range.
The defendant does not object to the sentencing guideline range of 92 to 115 months;
instead, he seeks a downward variance based upon 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) to a range of 33 to 41
months imprisonment. The defendants argument is premised upon his belief that the calculated
guideline range double counts his criminal history and he downplays his extensive criminal
history claiming that it is a product of his unstructured upbringing and immaturity.

The

defendants requested variance based upon an overrepresentation of his criminal history is

simply not supported by an examination of his criminal record. To the contrary, the defendants
criminal history is not fully accounted for by the guideline calculations and a sentence near the
high end of the guidelines range or above the guideline range would be appropriate.
B.

Sentencing Considerations under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)

1.

The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The Court is required to consider Williamss history and characteristics prior to imposing
sentence. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1). Williams was assessed 23 criminal history points, which
placed him in the highest criminal history category of VI. (PSR 33-35.) His 23 countable
criminal history points are ten points higher than the minimum necessary to be placed in a
Criminal History Category VI. Thus, if the Guidelines were to fully account for all of his
criminal history points, he should be sentenced at or above the high-end of a Criminal History
Category VI.
The defendants criminal history points are based upon several violent criminal
convictions in which he assaulted women. (PSR 25, 29, 30.) At the age of 31, Williams
violated an order of protection and forced his way into an unnamed females residence and later

2
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 2 of 8

he resisted arrest by the officers. (PSR 25.) His violence toward women escalated a year later
when he dragged his girlfriend up several stairs, held her captive and then chased her down the
street with a knife threatening to kill her. (PSR 29.) At the age of 33, Williams continued his
violent behavior by again forcing his way into a womans residence, pushing her to the ground,
throwing her around and assaulting her with a hot curling iron. (PSR 30.) The defendants
persistent violent behavior toward women while he was in his 30s, is not indicative of simple
immaturity, it is a sign of Williamss violent and dangerous history and characteristic. The
defendants violence toward women was not the only criminal behavior that earned him 23
criminal history points.
The defendant has multiple adult convictions related to controlled substances. At the age
of 25, Williams was found guilty of trafficking cocaine and again at the age of 27 he was found
in possession of cocaine. (PSR 21, 22.) He also received criminal history points for a
conviction for possession of marijuana. (PSR 23.) The defendant also was convicted of
stealing a motor vehicle at the age of 34, for which he received 3 criminal history points. (PSR
31.) Williams was not an immature teenager when he received his adult convictions, he was an
adult in this 30s.
Lastly, Williams has been convicted of felony resisting arrest at the age of 34, for which
he received 3 criminal history points. (PSR 32.) If the defendant had received this conviction
prior to the instant offense, he would have qualified as an armed career criminal subject to a
mandatory minimum 15 years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. 924(e). However, because it did not
occur prior to the instant offense he only received 3 criminal history points. Thus, the defendant
is lucky that he is not facing a significantly greater punishment than the 92 to 115 months
suggested by the Guidelines.

3
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 3 of 8

Williams also has other misdemeanor convictions for simple assault and resisting arrest
for which he received no criminal history points. (PSR 37.) He also has several other arrests
and pending cases for which he did not receive any criminal history points. (PSR 38-50.)
Williams has been given multiple opportunities and second chances before landing
himself before this Court. On his first felony conviction for trafficking crack cocaine, he
originally received probation, then violated that probation and was given a 120-day callback,
placed back on probation, violated probation again, given another 120-period of shock
incarceration, had his probation revoked and ordered to serve out the remainder of a 5-year
sentence, which resulted in his release on probation in 120-days and discharge from probation
only days thereafter. (PSR 21.) Williamss prior lenient treatment has not deterred him from
committing crimes and has resulted in his complete lack of respect for the law. His conduct in
the face of receiving lenient treatment warrants a substantial punishment in this case.
The defendant also received lenient treatment for his other crimes. He received only six
months in jail for his conviction of assaulting and threatening to kill his girlfriend with a knife.
(PSR 29.)

Williams originally received only probation for his felony domestic assault

conviction, which he violated and resulted in a sentence of three years in custody, after his
conviction for stealing a motor vehicle. (PSR 30, 31.) The defendant is a recidivist who will
commit further crimes.
The defendant asks this Court to overlook his prior violent crimes and grant him a
downward variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), because he believes the Guidelines doublecount his criminal history. This argument is simply without merit. United States v. Mendez, 685
F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2012)(finding defendants double-counting argument regarding the
Guidelines consideration of defendants criminal history to heighten his base offense level under

4
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 4 of 8

U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2) and to calculate his Criminal History Category, was without merit, and
upholding district courts two-level upward departure based upon underrepresentation of
criminal history). As shown by a close examination of Williamss criminal history, his criminal
history is not double-counted, it is actually underrepresented even more so than the defendant in
Mendez. Id. Mendez actually committed many of his prior countable criminal offenses prior to
turning 21, and Mendez had a total of only 18 criminal history points. Id. Williams was 25
when he earned his first counted criminal conviction, and he earned the majority of his criminal
history points in his 30s. Williams also had a total of 23 criminal history points. Thus, this
Court would be within its discretion to sentence Williams above his calculated guideline range.
Furthermore, if Williams had received his felony resisting arrest conviction prior to the
instant offense, he would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years instead of a
maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Williamss request for a downward variance is
simply not supported by his history and characteristics, which are indicative of a man who is a
significant threat to commit crimes in the future, especially violent crimes.
2.

The Need to Protect the Public from Future Crimes by the Defendant

The Court is required to consider whether a particular sentence is necessary to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1)(C). As discussed above,
Williamss prior criminal conduct, which includes a history of violent criminal behavior,
demonstrates that he is likely to commit similar crimes in the future. Additionally, his persistent
criminal behavior, as an adult in his 30s, after receiving lenient treatment shows that he is not
likely to change his criminal behavior and that he is a significant danger to the community.
Therefore, a significant period of incarceration is necessary to protect the public from his further
crimes.

5
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 5 of 8

3.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The Court is required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense of
conviction. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1). The Court also is required to consider the need for the
sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just
punishment for the offense.

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A).

Williamss crime of conviction

involved his unlawful possession of a firearm by a multi-convicted felon. He was arrested after
walking away from a stolen auto, he fled from the officers on foot and he resisted arrest to the
point that a taser was used to control him and take him into custody. The defendants criminal
conduct warrants a significant sentence of imprisonment to adequately reflect the seriousness of
the offense, promote respect for the law and provide a just punishment.
4.

The Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct

The Court is required to consider what type of sentence is needed to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct.

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(B).

Based on the defendants

involvement in this case and his past criminal conduct, a significant prison sentence would be
appropriate to deter him from engaging in future criminal conduct. Additionally, a significant
prison sentence is also necessary to deter others from committing similar crimes.
5.

The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity

The sentence imposed should be proportionate to the sentences of similarly situated

defendants. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). As this is a single defendant case, there are no similarly
situated defendants in this case by which to compare his culpability. Thus, a sentence within the
guideline calculations, which attempts to minimize unwarranted sentencing disparity, would be
appropriate.

Granting the defendant a more than 60 month downward variance as he has

requested would be an extraordinarily significant unwarranted sentencing disparity.

6
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 6 of 8

6.

Balancing of All 3553(a) Factors

The Court is granted wide latitude to weigh the 3553 factors as it sees fit and assign
some factors more weight than others. United States v. Norris, 685 F.3d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.
2012). Balancing all of the 3553 sentencing factors, the defendants sentence of imprisonment
should be within the guideline range. The Government believes that balancing all of the relevant
factors under 3553(a) justifies the imposition of a prison sentence at or above the high-end of
the sentencing guideline range of 115 months imprisonment.
C.

Recommended Sentence for Monetary Penalties

1.

Fine & Restitution

The statutory maximum fine that the Court may impose on the count of conviction is
$250,000, and the guideline provisions provide for a fine range between $10,000 to $100,000.
(PSR 67-69.) There is no restitution in this case. (PSR 70-71.)
2.

Forfeiture

There is no criminal forfeiture in this case.

3.

Special Assessment

Because the defendant was convicted of only one felony count, imposition of a $100
special assessment is required. (PSR 68.)

7
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 7 of 8

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court impose
sentence in accordance with the recommendations made herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Tammy Dickinson
United States Attorney

By

/s/Jess E. Michaelsen

Jess E. Michaelsen, #52253

Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Narcotics & Violent Crimes Unit
Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse
400 East Ninth Street, Room 5510
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Telephone: (816) 426-3122

jem/sgs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on April 25,
2014, to the Electronic filing System (CM/ECF) of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri for electronic delivery to all counsel of record.
Carrie Allen
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Federal Public Defenders Office
818 Grand Boulevard, Suite 300
Kansas City, Missouri 64106

/s/Jess E. Michaelsen
Jess E. Michaelsen
Assistant United States Attorney

8
Case 4:13-cr-00131-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/25/14 Page 8 of 8