United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-3099 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER R. WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 1:21-cr-10028-JES-JEH-1 — James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 — DECIDED OCTOBER 30, 2023 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Christopher Williams received a 360-month term of imprisonment for his role in a large-scale methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy, to which he pled guilty. Unhappy with that sentence, he appeals, arguing that the sentence was unreasonable, and that the judge erred in enhancing the sentence in light of aggravating factors. 2 No. 22-3099

In his sentencing hearing, the government portrayed Wil- liams as a major supplier to both other dealers and individual users, asserting that he was responsible for the distribution of more than 48 kilograms (105 pounds) of methamphetamine over the course of the conspiracy. As is all too often the tragic result with methamphetamine distribution, some of the drugs Williams supplied caused fatalities. The government’s inves- tigation linked three such deaths back to methamphetamine supplied by Williams. Laboratory testing of different batches of drugs supplied by Williams and confiscated by law en- forcement indicated that the tested drugs were between 96 to 100% pure methamphetamine. Ten people who purchased significant quantities of meth- amphetamine from Williams (and were all implicated in the distribution of methamphetamine with Williams) testified at his sentencing hearing about the quantities of drugs they bought from him. Several of them also testified about threats he made to them to induce payment for fronted supply, and about his possession and use of firearms. The government had plenty of other evidence of his drug dealings: a driver and passenger arrested for methamphetamine possession dis- closed Williams as their source. Another dealer in Peoria in- formed officers that he and Williams had distributed 276 grams of methamphetamine as part of their trafficking rela- tionship. And officers orchestrated a controlled buy with au- dio and visual recording in which, after phone calls arranging the transaction with Williams, Williams’ associate provided the source with approximately twenty grams of methamphet- amine. Williams pled guilty to four different counts involving distribution and possession of methamphetamine in violation No. 22-3099 3 of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Williams to a sentence at the bottom of the 360 month to life range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guideline—imposing a 360-month sentence for each count, to be served concurrently. A. The reasonableness of the sentence In this appeal, Williams begins with what some consider the Mt. Everest of sentencing arguments. Williams would like us to conclude that his within-Guidelines sentence was unrea- sonable. This goal is elusive both because of the deference ap- pellate courts owe to district courts in sentencing generally, and because of the presumption of reasonableness attached to sentences recommended by the United States Sentencing Commission. As for deference, the district court has a front row view to the facts of the crime, the demeanor and credibility of the wit- nesses, the presentation of the pre-sentencing report, and the assessment of the § 3553 factors. S