USA v. Leonard Williamson, Jr., No. 22-2181 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 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. ORDER 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). 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
