United States v. Williamson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY HENRY WILLIAMSON, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 14-151 (RMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

January 27, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 16, 2014, Jeffrey Henry Williamson was convicted by a jury of threatening to assault and murder a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent with intent to retaliate against the agent on account of his performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). Mr. Williamson represented himself at trial, with appointed standby counsel. Mr. Williamson appealed his conviction and was again appointed counsel. Although appointed counsel submitted arguments on Mr. Williamson's behalf, the D.C. Circuit also permitted Mr. Williamson to file a pro se supplemental brief raising any additional issues he would like the Circuit to consider. The Circuit issued its decision on August 10, 2018, affirming Mr. Williamson's conviction and sentence, but remanding the case back to this Court to provide Mr. Williamson with access to jury commission records. Mr. Williamson now moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Having reviewed Mr. Williamson's § 2255 motion, supplements, motions for discovery, motions for expansion of the record, and motion for a hearing, the Court will deny the motions.

I. FACTS

FBI Special Agent (SA) Brian Schmitt and Denver Police Officer William Gallegos testified at trial that from 2005 to 2006 they investigated the Defendant, Jeff Henry Williamson, while they served on an FBI Task Force in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Williamson had been making harassing and threatening telephone calls to the FBI Denver office, the U.S. Attorney, and the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. SA Schmitt and Officer Gallegos were assigned to investigate. As part of their investigation, Officer Gallegos issued citations for Disturbance by Use of Telephone to Mr. Williamson on October 21, 2005; December 16, 2005; and January 25, 2006. See Gov't Trial Exs. 13-15 (Denver Tickets). SA Schmitt was listed as the complaining witness on the three tickets.

Although their current status is unclear, at that time Mr. Williamson maintained websites titled www.watchdogblog.webs.com, www.dojfbi.webs.com, and numerous others, in which he claimed to act as a government watchdog. Without evidentiary support, Mr. Williamson claimed that (1) SA Schmitt and Officer Gallegos acted illegally in issuing the three Denver citations and (2) since their issuance in 2005-2006, SA Schmitt had worked with FBI and other law enforcement agents across the country to "gang stalk," harass, and otherwise cause financial and other damage to Mr. Williamson due to the websites.

On June 2, 2014, Mr. Williamson left fourteen voicemail messages for an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in Washington, D.C. See Gov't Trial Exs. 2-12, 26-28 (Voicemail Recordings); see also Def. Trial Ex. 8, Voicemail Tr. [Dkt. 189-1]. In these voicemail messages, Mr. Williamson identified himself and his websites, www.watchdogblog.webs.com and www.dojfbi.webs.com. Mr. Williamson mentioned the three tickets issued in Denver by referencing the .PDF copies of the tickets posted on the dojfbi.webs.com website and threatened to "drag" SA Schmitt into court.

Seven days later, on June 9, 2014, Mr. Williamson made a phone call to the FBI office in Denver, Colorado. The call was made to the number belonging to Assistant SpecialAgent in Charge Steve Olson and was answered by Teresa Schneider. Ms. Schneider testified at trial that the caller asked if he had reached the office of Mr. Olson and then told her to write down two website addresses: www.watchdogblog.webs.com and www.dojfbi.webs.com. 12/9/14 am Trial Tr. [Dkt. 297] at 80. The caller also told Ms. Schneider to "tell Steve Olson and Brian Schmitt I am going to hunt them down and kill them." Id. at 84. She further testified that she recognized the caller as Mr. Williamson as she had taken multiple calls from him within the prior month during which he had identified himself. Id.

Ten days later, on June 19, 2014, Mr. Williamson left a message on the 9-1-1 emergency line with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). That message stated:

I'm being stalked down here for this website. . . . I'm an American citizen. They're trying to provoke me and entice me into violence. Uh, so they can prosecute me and put me into prison. That's entrapment. Now, how 'bout if you call the FBI and tell 'em, how 'bout if I go shoot FBI Agent Brian Schmitt in his fuckin' head? Is that gonna stop this gang stalkin' ring? How 'bout if I go shoot FBI Agent Brian Schmitt in his mother fuckin' head? . . . Call the Washington, D.C. FBI Field Office and just fuckin' tell those motherfuckers that I'm gonna shoot that motherfucker in his fuckin' head. . . . I have fuckin' reported this, they're still doin' it, and if it doesn't stop I'm gonna kill that fuckin' FBI Agent. Now what? . . . I will shoot that fuckin' FBI Agent in his fuckin' face. Now what?

Gov't Trial Ex. 1 (9-1-1 Recording); Def. Trial Ex. 5 (9-1-1 Transcript).

The single count in the Indictment arose from this June 19, 2014 message. The Indictment charged Mr. Williamson with violating 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), that is, threatening to assault and murder Brian Schmitt, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with intent to retaliate against SA Schmitt on account of his performance of official duties. See Indictment [Dkt. 7]. Trial started on December 8, 2014. Mr. Williamson appeared pro se at trial, with standby counsel, and testified on his own behalf. In his testimony, Mr. Williamson admitted to making the relevant phone call, but stated that the threat was not based on SASchmitt's performance of official duties, but due to SA Schmitt's alleged "gang stalking." 12/12/14 Trial Tr. [Dkt. 324] at 43-45. The jury rendered a guilty verdict on December 16, 2014. See Minute Entry 12/16/14.

Mr. Williamson moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial and the Court denied both motions. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. 262]; Order [Dkt. 263]. Mr. Williamson was sentenced to 96 months' incarceration on March 10, 2015. See 3/10/15 Minute Entry. Mr. Williamson appealed his conviction and sentence. During the appeal, Mr. Williamson was represented first by Stephen Leckar and then by Richard Gilbert.¹ Mr. Gilbert prepared the briefing on behalf of Mr. Williamson and raised four issues:

First, he contends that the indictment was legally insufficient because it did not fairly inform him of the charged offense. Second, he argues that the district court erred in declining to instruct the jury on his proposed entrapment defense. Third, he submits that the district court improperly denied him access to jury-commission records. Fourth, he contends that the district court abused its discretion in several ways in sentencing him to 96 months of imprisonment.

United States v. Williamson, 903 F.3d 124, 129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The Circuit also permitted Mr. Williamson to submit a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed Mr. Gilbert had missed, which were considered and discussed in the Circuit's decision. See id. at 137-38 ("Williamson makes a number of additional arguments in his pro se briefing. We have given those arguments thorough consideration and have concluded that they lack merit. We specifically address two of them here: first, Williamson argues that the district judge should have recused herself; and second, Williamson argues that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated during pre-trial proceedings."). The Circuit affirmed Mr.Williamson's conviction and sentence; it remanded the case to the District Court to provide Mr. Williamson "access to jury-commission records consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1867." Id. at 138. On remand, the Court appointed counsel to assist Mr. Williamson with the issue of jury-commission records. That counsel requested records from the jury office, which were received in October 2019. The Court set a December 13, 2019 deadline for counsel to file any necessary motions regarding the jury data and no motion was filed.

Mr. Williamson now moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2255 Mot.) [Dkt. 348]. The motion is ripe for review.², ³

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A federal prisoner claiming the right to be released on the ground that "the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).Because "[s]ection 2255 is not a substitute for a direct appeal," "in order to gain relief under any claim, [the movant] is obliged to show a good deal more than would be sufficient on a direct appeal from his sentence." United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011, 1020 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982)) (emphasis in original). The petitioner has the burden of proof to demonstrate his right to such relief by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Simpson, 475 F.2d 934, 935 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

With few exceptions, a prisoner may not raise a claim as part of a collateral attack if that claim could have been raised on direct appeal, unless he can demonstrate either: (1) "cause" for his failure to do so and "prejudice" as a result of the alleged violation, or (2) "actual innocence" of the crime of which he was convicted. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622-23 (1998). However, "[w]here a petitioner raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a § 2255 motion, he need not show 'cause and prejudice' for not having raised such claims on direct...