United States v. Williams

5 F.4th 500

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.Alan WILLIAMS, Defendant – Appellant.

No. 20-4120

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 7, 2021

Decided: July 20, 2021

ARGUED: Nicholas Joseph Compton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William J. Powell, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Harris joined.

RUSHING, Circuit Judge:

Over the course of at least two years, Alan Williams gained the trust of a family with three children. He grew so close with the family that the parents let him take their teenage daughter, E.W., on out-of-state vacations. But unbeknownst to E.W.’s parents, Williams used those trips to sexually abuse the girl and, from their encounters, produced child pornography which he then distributed worldwide. Law enforcement eventually caught on to Williams, and he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b). The district court sentenced Williams to 327 months’ imprisonment—65 months above the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. It also imposed a within-Guidelines lifetime term of supervised release and numerous supervised release conditions. Williams timely appeals to challenge his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

I.

By all accounts, Williams seemed like an upstanding citizen. He drove a school bus, worked as a volunteer firefighter and EMT, and was a long-time friend and roommate of a Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff. Williams met E.W.’s family when the fire department hosted a special event for their youngest daughter, who is severely autistic. Over time, the family invited Williams into their home to "assist[ ] the family so that they could see to the special needs of the youngest child." J.A. 130. Williams assumed a "caregiver" relationship with the family's older children, E.W. and her brother, even taking them on vacations. J.A. 130. The parents so trusted Williams that they allowed him to take E.W. alone on a trip for her sixteenth birthday with, as a sign of his custody and control, a notarized statement "granting him permission to seek medical attention on her behalf." J.A. 55, 178.

Reality, however, proved much more sinister. While cultivating a relationship with the family, Williams was sexually abusing E.W. When E.W. was 14 years old (and Williams was 52), he traveled with her to Ocean City, Maryland, where he secretly took photographs of her using a hidden "pinhole" camera while she was fully nude in a hotel bathroom. He then shared those images online, advertising them as explicit photographs of his "15 yo niece" and his "own work." J.A. 177. Two years later, on a trip to Maryland for E.W.’s sixteenth birthday, Williams again used "various pinhole cameras and other covert devices to record E.W. in various stages of undress without her knowledge." J.A. 178. He also photographed himself engaging in sexual intercourse and other sexually explicit conduct with E.W.

Though Williams had successfully deceived E.W.’s family, law enforcement was catching on. Using a file-sharing website, Williams had shared numerous folders containing child pornography with an Australian police officer who accessed those folders using a password provided by Williams and confirmed their contents. Williams recounted to the undercover officer his sexual activity with E.W., whom Williams referred to as his "niece." J.A. 177. When Williams informed the officer that he would soon be spending time with E.W. again, the officer notified the Department of Homeland Security Investigations.

A federal search warrant immediately issued for Williams's residence. While the officers were searching, Williams returned to the residence with E.W. in his custody, along with an overnight bag containing sex toys and bikinis. Williams admitted to possessing child pornography and sexually abusing E.W. He recounted how he "practice[d]" using his pinhole cameras by covertly photographing children on the school bus he drove for Loudoun County Public Schools, including the photograph of an 11-year-old girl in his shared folder labeled as his "own work." J.A. 31–32, 177. During the search, officers seized over 100,000 images of child pornography from Williams's devices, including images of prepubescent minors, bondage, abuse of toddlers, and bestiality.

A federal grand jury indicted Williams on six counts relating to his possession, production, and distribution of child pornography.¹ He pleaded guilty to one count of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b). As part of the plea agreement, Williams stipulated that in February 2019, he

was given temporary supervision and control over E.W. [with whom] ... he traveled ... from ... West Virginia to Maryland with the intent to produce child pornography. Specifically, he traveled with pinhole camera(s) and other recording devices to covertly record E.W. while nude and while engaged in sexually explicit conduct .... Several pinhole cameras were recovered from Williams's bedroom during the execution of a search warrant on his residence, including one tiny camera embedded in a toiletry bag that was controlled by remote control [and] would have gone unnoticed by E.W. Using ... the ... cameras, Williams captured fully nude photographs of E.W. [as well as] ... photograph[s of] E.W. engaged in sexually explicit conduct ....

J.A. 54–55. "All the aforementioned conduct was committed by [Williams] ... while he was tasked by her parents with caring for ... E.W." J.A. 55. Williams also agreed to pay $20,000 in restitution to E.W., which would be placed in trust for her future treatment and care.

In the presentence investigation report (PSR), the probation office calculated a total offense level of 37 and criminal-history category of I, yielding a Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment and 5 years to life supervised release. The PSR listed and explained 22 recommended conditions of supervised release, such as barring Williams from possessing any cameras without prior approval and requiring Williams to allow the probation officer to install monitoring software on any computer he uses. The PSR also identified two factors that might warrant an upward departure from the Guidelines sentencing range: dismissed and uncharged conduct under Section 5K2.21 and extreme psychological injury under Section 5K2.3, as evidenced by E.W. cutting herself, becoming suicidal, requiring hospitalization for mental health concerns, and being placed in foster care.

At sentencing, the district court accepted the PSR without objection. Williams's attorney requested the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment (a below-Guidelines sentence) and 5 years’ supervised release. He specifically contested the proposed grounds for departure in the PSR and emphasized Williams's acceptance of responsibility, lack of criminal history, and "life of service to the community." J.A. 119–123. The Government requested a sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment—the top of the Guidelines range. It emphasized, among other things, Williams's abuse of trust and E.W.’s resulting mental health problems, for which Williams bore at least "part of the blame." J.A. 128–138; see J.A. 135–136 (conceding that "perhaps [ ] Williams isn't to blame for all" of E.W.’s mental health issues).

After hearing from the parties, the district court announced a "variant sentence" of 327 months’ imprisonment and supervised release for life. J.A. 140–141. The court also imposed the twenty-two special conditions of supervised release from the PSR, grouping the conditions into roughly six categories according to their supporting rationales. For example, the requirements that Williams participate in a sex-offense specific assessment and treatment program, the court explained, "assist probation in identifying treatment needs, providing rehab services, reducing the risk of recidivism, and provide for protection of the community." J.A. 142. The conditions that Williams "must not use or possess alcohol[,] ... must take all medications that are prescribed by [his] treating physician[,] [and] must not work in any type of employment without the prior approval of [his] probation officer[,]" the court reasoned, will "assist probation in reducing the risk of recidivism and provide for protection of the community." J.A. 142. Similarly, the various requirements limiting Williams's computer access and contact with children, the court explained, "assist probation in reducing the risk of recidivism, providing for protection of the community, and reducing the risk of harm to third persons." J.A. 144; see also J.A. 142–146 (announcing the other conditions and their supporting rationales).

The district court then explained that it considered all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in reaching its decision. The court emphasized the "egregious nature of this offense," which "involved the sexual exploitation and abuse of a child for at least a two-year period," during which Williams "secretly recorded" and distributed "across the world" nude images of E.W., as well as images of him sexually abusing her, and "boasted online about his sexual activities with her." J.A. 147–148. The abuse, the court noted, ended only when law enforcement intervened. The court considered the harm to E.W., who "has since been suffering from psychological difficulties" and "will continue to be re-victimized each time her images of abuse are distributed and/or viewed." J.A. 147; cf. J.A. 140 (declining to resolve the parties’ dispute over when E.W.’s self-harm and mental health struggles began). The...