United States of America v. Davon R. Williams

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2705
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Davon R. Williams
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 9, 2026
Filed: July 16, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Davon Williams appeals after a jury convicted him of drug and firearm
offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to 420 months in prison. His counsel
1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. Williams has filed a pro se brief
challenging his conviction and the calculation of the Guidelines range.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Williams’s arguments based on Johnson
v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) and United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) are
unavailing. See In re Navarro, 931 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (18
U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction based on drug-trafficking crimes is outside the scope of Johnson
and Davis). We also conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support
Williams’s convictions for possessing firearms in furtherance of drug-trafficking
crimes, see United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency
of evidence to sustain conviction is reviewed de novo); United States v. Spears, 454
F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court does not weigh evidence or assess
credibility of witnesses; examining evidence in light most favorable to verdict and
accepting all reasonable inferences which tend to support jury verdict; appellate court
will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt); and that the district court did not err in giving non-model jury
instructions, see United States v. Owens, 966 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir. 2020) (model
jury instructions serve as helpful suggestions but are not binding on the district courts
unless promulgated by this court).
We further conclude that the district court did not err in calculating Williams’s
Guidelines range, and note that any error would have been harmless, as the court
stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained his
objections. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015)
(construction and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo; factual findings
are reviewed for clear error); United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir.
2019) (Guidelines miscalculation is harmless when the district court indicates that it
would have alternatively imposed the same sentence even if a lower range applied).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

As to the argument in the Anders brief, we conclude that the district court did
not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered
the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant
factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (reviewing sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of
discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider
relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the
court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v.
McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court
has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court
abused its discretion in not varying further).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --