TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Darrell Everett Williams

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Darrell Everett WILLIAMS, Appellant

United States v. Williams, 943 F.2d 896 (8th Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 6, 1991
Docket
No. 91-1219EM
Judges
Fagg, Bowman, Loken
Citations
943 F.2d 8961991 WL 1704121991 U.S. App. LEXIS 20799

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Everett Williams appeals the twelve month sentence he received following the revocation of his probation. We remand for resentencing.

Williams pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, and on August 5, 1988, he was sentenced to three years probation. Williams later violated a number of state laws, including the sale of marijuana. In January 1991 the district court revoked Williams’s probation and sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment. The district court sentenced Williams under the guidelines then in effect, applying policy statements contained in chapter seven of the sentencing guidelines that govern sentencing following probation revocation.

See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.3, 7B1.4 (Nov. 1, 1990).

Williams contends the district court committed error in failing to sentence him under the statutes and guidelines that applied when he was originally sentenced in August 1988. We agree. In United States v. Von Washington, 915 F.2d 390 (8th Cir.1990), this court held that “following probation revocation, the district court [must] impose a sentence that was available at the time of the original sentencing.”

Id.

at 391 . Chapter seven of the guidelines did not become effective until November 1, 1990. Thus, the district court erroneously considered guideline policy statements that were not available when Williams was originally sentenced in August 1988.

Accordingly, we remand to the district court for resentencing. We leave to the district court the Government’s contention *897 that because Williams was in possession of a controlled substance, the district court must “sentence [Williams] to not less than one-third of the original sentence,” 18 U.S.C. § 8565 (a) (1988), notwithstanding the guidelines sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1991: 11992: 11993: 11994: 119912026peak 1991 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. William James Dixon, Jr.952 F.2d 260 (9th Cir. 1991)
  2. United States v. Reginald Levi2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993)
  3. United States v. Gaskins849 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Va. 1994)
  4. United States v. Clown794 F. Supp. 338 (D.S.D. 1992)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Gaskins849 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Va. 1994)
  2. United States v. Reginald Levi2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993)
  3. United States v. Clown794 F. Supp. 338 (D.S.D. 1992)
  4. United States v. William James Dixon, Jr.952 F.2d 260 (9th Cir. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Washington, 915 F.2d 390 (8th Cir. 1990) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list