USA v. James M. Williamson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13081
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES M. WILLIAMSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cr-00096-MCR-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13081
Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Court
Judges
PER CURIAM:
James Williamson appeals his sentence of 360 months’ im-
prisonment for production of child pornography, arguing that the
district court erred in applying a 5-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 for engaging in a pattern of activity involving pro-
hibited sexual conduct because the commentary stating the en-
hancement applies to production of child pornography violated the
statute authorizing the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promul-
gate the guideline.
We review de novo the interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Cingari, 952 F.3d 1301, 1305
(11th Cir. 2020).
We will not address a disputed guideline determination on
appeal when a sentencing court explicitly states that the guideline
determination was immaterial to the ultimate sentence imposed
because it would have imposed the same sentence under its
§ 3553(a) authority so long as the sentence was reasonable. United
States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2006). When the
sentencing court makes such a statement, we will reduce the guide-
line range in accordance with the defendant’s arguments and ana-
lyze whether the sentence would be substantively reasonable under
that alternative guideline range. Id. at 1349-50.
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

22-13081 Opinion of the Court 3
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a defer-
ential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears
the burden of demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable.
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
We examine whether a sentence is substantively reasonable consid-
ering the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The
factors due consideration under the statute include the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the offense’s seriousness, promoting respect for the law,
just punishment, adequate deterrence, protecting the public, the
guideline range, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dis-
parities among similar offenders. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However,
the weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the
sound discretion of the district court. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at
1254.
The sentencing court also has wide discretion to conclude
that the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance. United States v. Rodri-
guez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds
by Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021). A major vari-
ance must be supported by more significant reasoning than a minor
one, but the court need not discuss each factor in its justification.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Conduct that did not yield a conviction can
serve as the basis of an upward variance if it relates to sentencing
factors such as the history and characteristics of the defendant, re-
spect for the law, adequate deterrence, and protection of the pub-
lic. United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13081
Additionally, the court can rely on factors previously considered in
imposing an enhancement. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1264 (holding
that varying upward from the guideline range to account for mul-
tiple victims was not procedurally unreasonable, even when an en-
hancement was applied on the same grounds).
Here, it is unnecessary for us to address Williamson’s argu-
ment that the district court erred in applying the 5-level enhance-
ment under § 4B1.5(b) because the district court explicitly stated
that it would have imposed the same 360-month imprisonment
sentence even without the enhancement. If the court had not ap-
plied the 5-level enhancement under § 4B1.5(b), then Williamson’s
offense level would have been 35 and, with his criminal history cat-
egory of III, his guideline range would have been 210 to 262
months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, Sentencing Table.
Williamson has failed to show that his 360-month sentence
would be substantively unreasonable under this alternative guide-
line range when considering the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. Despite Williamson’s claim that
the court erred by failing to consider the significant mitigating fac-
tors of his traumatic childhood and mental illness, the court did
take into account Williamson’s mitigation arguments in acknowl-
edging that Williamson had endured trauma and was subject to
“terrible” and “tragic” abuse as a child but concluded that “there’s
just nothing that excuses” his offenses and “you just can’t find mit-
igation on these facts and under these circumstances.” See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51; Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254. Furthermore, the court
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

22-13081 Opinion of the Court 5
opted to run his federal sentence concurrently to his state sentence
for the same conduct, potentially in recognition of his mitigation
arguments, even though it stated that a consecutive sentence likely
would not have been overturned given the seriousness of his of-
fense and his long history of sexually abusing young girls.
While Williamson claims the court did not adequately jus-
tify what would have been a substantial upward variance, the court
stated on the record that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and
explained, in detail, its rationale in sentencing Williamson. See Ro-
driguez, 628 F.3d at 1264; Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. In particular, the dis-
trict court assessed Williamson’s personal characteristics, empha-
sizing that Williamson had engaged in a pattern of abusing children
“[s]ince at least 2003,” and the character of Williamson’s offense,
underscoring that he engaged directly in the sexual abuse that was
depicted in the photos and videos in addition to producing the im-
ages and therefore merited a longer sentence than many others
convicted of the same charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). On these
grounds alone, the court stated that Williamson’s 30-year sentence
would not have been substantively unreasonable even if imposed
to run consecutively to his state sentence “given the egregious na-
ture of the conduct and how long this has been going on and been
a part of your life.” To the extent that Williamson takes issue with
the court focusing on his prior child sex abuse offenses, which are
reflected in his criminal history score as part of the guideline calcu-
lations, the court is not barred from taking his conviction and non-
conviction criminal history into account as part of the § 3553(a)
factors as well, especially because Williamson’s specific history of
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13081
child abuse was distinct from, and arguably more relevant than, his
general criminal history score. See Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355; Rodri-
guez, 628 F.3d at 1264; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court also con-
cluded that fairness and “respect for the law” demanded a 30-year
sentence, with at least 15 years served in federal prison in addition
to Williamson’s state sentence, because Williamson’s state sen-
tence did not account for his production of child pornography
charge and Congress required a 15-year minimum sentence for that
offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Thus, the court considered the serious nature and circum-
stances of Williamson’s offense as both a physical abuser and a por-
nographer, his criminal history of sexually abusing children, the
need to punish him for his serious conduct beyond the minimum
sentence given to less culpable offenders, and respect for the law by
imposing the minimum sentence for his federal charge in addition
to time served concurrently to his separate state charge, consider-
ing these factors more significant than his mitigating circum-
stances. Even though 98 months would be a substantial upward
variance from the guideline range that would have applied without
the § 4B1.5(b) enhancement, the court provided a significantly
compelling justification for it in terms of the egregious offense con-
duct and Williamson’s history of sexual misconduct with minors.
Because the sentence is reasonable under the alternative
range that would have applied without the enhancement, any error
by the district court in applying the enhancement was harmless.
See Keene, 470 F.3d at 1348-50.
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

22-13081 Opinion of the Court 7
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13081 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --