United States of America v. Maurice Williams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-3082
(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-20137-JWL-1)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Defendant-Appellant Maurice Williams, a federal inmate appearing pro se,
seeks an appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction
under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat.
5194, 5222 (2018). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 9, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3082 Document: 010110573523 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Background
In July 2008, Mr. Williams sold 6.7 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover
police officer working at a store in Kansas City, Kansas. 1 R. 25. The following
month, Mr. Williams entered that same store and sold a rifle to an undercover officer.
Id. In January 2009, Mr. Williams pled guilty to distributing five grams or more of
crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and
possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Id.
at 24. In April 2009, the district court sentenced Mr. Williams to 84 months
imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. Id. at 31–32.
Mr. Williams subsequently filed a motion for a sentence reduction under § 404
of the First Step Act of 2018. Id. at 72. Mr. Williams argued that he is eligible for a
sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act, which allows district courts
to “impose reduced sentences as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” See § 404(b),
132 Stat. at 5222 (citation omitted). The government conceded that Mr. Williams is
eligible for consideration of a reduced sentence under the First Step Act since Mr.
Williams was sentenced before August 3, 2010, and “his sentencing exposure would
indeed be different today.” 1 R. 84–85. However, the government requested that the
court deny Mr. Williams’s motion based on several violations of his supervised
release. Id. at 87–88.
The district court denied Mr. Williams’s motion. The district court reasoned
that relief under the First Step Act is discretionary and a reduction in sentence is not
Appellate Case: 21-3082 Document: 010110573523 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
warranted based on Mr. Williams’s continual violations of his supervised release. Id.
at 100.
Discussion
We review a district court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction for an abuse
of discretion. United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1265 (10th Cir. 2016). Mr.
Williams argues that the district court failed to perform a holistic review of the facts
and circumstances surrounding his motion for a sentence reduction. Aplt. Br. at 3.
Specifically, Mr. Williams cites alleged sentencing disparities between himself and
similarly situated defendants in addition to pending federal legislation as the
circumstances that the district court overlooked. Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Williams’s
motion for a sentence reduction as it presented a reasonably articulated basis for its
conclusion. See United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145, 1158 (10th Cir. 2020).
Section 404 of the First Step Act is clear: “Nothing in this section shall be construed
to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.” § 404(c), 132
Stat. at 5222. Therefore, any reduction in sentence under the First Step Act is
completely discretionary. See United States v. Brown, 974 F.3d 1137, 1143–44 (10th
Cir. 2020). In properly exercising its discretion, the district court relied on Mr.
Williams’s numerous, serious violations of his release conditions. 1. R. 100. In
relying on Mr. Williams’s violation report, the district court provided a reasonably
Appellate Case: 21-3082 Document: 010110573523 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
articulated basis for its determination that a sentence reduction is not warranted in
this case.
AFFIRMED. We GRANT the motion to proceed IFP on appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-3082 Document: 010110573523 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --