UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RISHAD WILLIAMS, aka Rashad Williams - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RISHAD WILLIAMS, aka Rashad Williams

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 24, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Ashley S. Alexander, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Frank H. Spryszak, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Ashley S. Alexander, Charles L. McCloud, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, Washington, D.C., Stephen F. Raiola, KIBLER FOWLER & CAVE LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Frank H. Spryszak, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee

Judge(s): BUSH, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

READLER, Circuit Judge. Lacking a written plea agreement preserving any issues for appeal, Rishad Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court sentenced Williams to 100 months’ imprisonment based in part on a sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony offense. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024). Despite the nature of his plea, Williams now asks us to address a host of arguments, from violations of his Second, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights to the improper application of a sentence enhancement. Because Williams pleaded guilty unconditionally, we do not reach his Second and Fourth Amendment arguments. As for his Sixth Amendment claim, we follow our usual practice of not deciding on direct appeal whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in district court. That leaves Williams’s sentencing argument, for which ample evidence supports application of the enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm.

Attachments: