United States of America v. Ronald Williams, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3411
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ronald Williams, Jr.
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: May 8, 2023
Filed: June 12, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2019, Ronald Eugene Williams, Jr. pled guilty to assault resulting in serious
bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. The district court
sentenced him to 33 months in prison. In 2020, Williams escaped from prison. In
2021, he pled guilty to escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). The district court
sentenced him to time served and three years of supervised release. He violated the

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
conditions of release. Revoking his release, the district court varied downward,
sentencing him to time served and 18 months of supervised release. He again
violated the conditions of release. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in
prison and 10 months of supervised release. He appeals the sentence. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part and vacates and
remands in part.
I.
Williams challenges his sentence, 10 months above the top of the guidelines
range, as substantively unreasonable. He claims the district court did not adequately
weigh his mitigating circumstances, including his difficult upbringing, the lack of a
stable home environment, and his institutionalizations. This court reviews for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Harris, 55 F.4th 1162, 1163 (8th Cir. 2022).
“A sentencing court has wide latitude to weigh the relevant factors and to
assign some greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.”
United States v. Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 898 (8th Cir. 2022). The district court
acknowledged Williams’ mitigating factors:
I sympathize with your situation. I know you didn’t bargain for that
when you were born and you have—from your attorney’s
representation, had a very tough upbringing and a very tough life. But
you are in a situation and in a society now with drugs that will kill you.
So you need to get over that and off of that. And hopefully this will set
you into that trajectory.
Williams’ claim is simply a disagreement with the weight the district court
afforded his mitigating circumstances. But he “must show more than the fact that
the district court disagreed with his view of what weight ought to be accorded certain
sentencing factors.” United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 442 (8th Cir. 2019). The
district court did not abuse its discretion.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
II.
Williams argues, and the government agrees, that his ten-month term of
supervised release exceeds that allowable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). When
sentenced for escape, Williams received the maximum amount of supervised release
allowable (three years). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) (authorizing “not more than
three years” for a Class C or D felony). When a defendant’s supervised release is
revoked and a term of imprisonment imposed, the district court may impose an
additional term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). But the length of
that term “shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for
the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of
imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” Id. The
phrase “any term of imprisonment” includes the prison term in the current revocation
sentence and all prison time served under any prior revocation sentences for the same
underlying offense. See United States v. Zoran, 682 F.3d 1060, 1063-64 (8th Cir.
2012).
Williams’ first supervised release revocation resulted in a term of
imprisonment of time served (65 days). Combining that with his current sentence
of 24 months, his total term of imprisonment on the two revocations was 26 months
and five days. The ten-month term of supervised release exceeded that allowable
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) by five days. This court vacates the ten-month term of
supervised release and remands to the district court to amend the supervised release
portion of the sentence.
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --