USA v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, 	Case No. 25-cr-240 (LMP/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v. 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Ramone Lashawn Williams (1),
Defendant.
On June 12, 2025, a grand jury indicted Defendant Ramone Lashawn Williams on
one count, charging him with possession of a firearm after being convicted of three or
more violent felonies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Dkt. No. 1. The
indictment alleges that prior to the instant offense, Williams was convicted of the following
felonies, at least three of which were violent felonies: (1) Second Degree Aggravated
Robbery; (2) Fifth Degree Drug Possession; (3) Felony Domestic Assault; (4) Felony
Domestic Abuse; (5) Fifth Degree Assault; and (6) Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Id.
Williams moves to dismiss the indictment or alternatively strike the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA) allegation. Dkt. No. 35 at 1. He argues that he does not have three
prior felony convictions that qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. Id. This Court
previously held that “[t]he proper time to challenge an Armed Career Criminal Act
designation is at sentencing.” United States v. Walker, No. CR 17-181, 2017 WL
8944018, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2017) R. & R. adopted by 2018 WL 400759 (D. Minn.
Jan. 12, 2018); see also, e.g., United States v. Heggs, No. 15-CR-148, 2015 WL 6739537,
at *6 (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2015) R. & R. adopted by 2015 WL 6756104 (D. Minn. Nov. 4,
CASE 0:25-cr-00240-LMP-DTS Doc. 40 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
2015). Therefore, it is recommended that Williams’s Amended Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative to Strike the ACCA Allegation be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT:
1. 	Defendant Ramone Lashawn Williams’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Count
1 of the Indictment for Failure to State an Offense Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); or in the
Alternative, to Strike the Armed Career Criminal Allegation (Dkt. No. 35) be DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: February 4, 2026 	s/ David T. Schultz__________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: 	This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. 	LR 72.2(b)(2). 	All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cr-00240-LMP-DTS Doc. 40 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2