United States of America v. Leonard Williamson, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 15, 2024
Decided March 18, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEONARD WILLIAMSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:21-CR-00132
James P. Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury found Leonard Williamson, Jr., guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The same jury acquitted him of carrying a
firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and
possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Despite the acquittal
on the firearm counts, the judge considered the same conduct at sentencing—over
Williamson’s objection—and found by a preponderance of the evidence that he
possessed a firearm in connection with a drug crime. Based on that finding, the judge
applied a two-level enhancement to Williamson’s total offense level under the
Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2181 Page 2
The enhancement boosted Williamson’s offense level from 12 to 14, yielding an
advisory imprisonment range of 33 to 41 months. (Without the enhancement, the range
would have been 27 to 33 months.) After weighing the sentencing factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the judge imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 57 months in
prison.
Williamson’s appeal raises a single issue: he argues that the judge’s reliance on
acquitted conduct to calculate the Guidelines range violated his rights to due process
and trial by jury under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997), as we have repeatedly held, see, e.g.,
United States v. Robinson, 62 F.4th 318, 320–21 (7th Cir. 2023) (collecting cases).
Williamson acknowledges as much and explains that he raises the issue here to
preserve it for Supreme Court review. He has properly done so. Robinson, 62 F.4th at
321 (rejecting the same argument based on Watts and noting that the defendant
properly preserved the issue for further review).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --